Judgment S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J. 1. This application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed for quashing the order dated 7.2.88 passed in Criminal Revision No. 28/88. 2. It appears that the Executive Magistrate by his order dated 28.1.88 declared the possession of the petitioner over the disputed land; The opposite parties moved in revision and the First Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, by the impugned order, set aside the order of the Executive Magistrate declaring the possession of opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 over the disputed land. 3. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. M.P. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties about the maintainability of this application. Firstly, he submits that the impugned order being revisable under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner ought not to have filed this quashing application. Secondly, it is contended that against the same order the petitioner earlier moved this Court under Sec. 482 of the Code in Cr. Misc. No. 557/88 (R) which was dismissed as withdrawn on 8.3.88. he submits that the present application should be dismissed on that score alone. 4. Mr. N.K.P. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, however, contends that as because the same Single Judge who had earlier dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner, has admitted this application, this application should be deemed to be maintainable. he further contends that in view of the decision reported in A.I.R. 1975 Supreme Court, 1002, a second quashing application under Sec. 482 of the Code is maintainable. It is also contended by him that if ultimately it is held that an application under Section 482 of the code is not maintainable for quashing the impugned order, the petitioner may be permitted to convert this application into a revision application. 5. First paragraph of Cr. Misc. No. 557/88 (R) reads as follows: That this application is directed against the order dated 17.2.88 passed by Sri Shiveshwar Narain, 1st Addl. Session Judge. Dhanbad in Cr. 5. First paragraph of Cr. Misc. No. 557/88 (R) reads as follows: That this application is directed against the order dated 17.2.88 passed by Sri Shiveshwar Narain, 1st Addl. Session Judge. Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 28/88 reversing the order dated 28.1.88 passed by Sri N.K. Sinha, learned Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad in M.P. case No. 785/85 whereby and where under he has been pleased to set aside the order dated 28.1.88 passed by the said learned Executive Magistrate and has further been pleased to declare possession of the opposite parties No. 1, 2 and 3 over the disputed land. The prayer portion of the said Cr. Misc. No. 557/88 (R) reads as follows: It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may be pleased to admit this application, call for the record of Cr., Revision No. 28/88 from the court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judges, Dhanbad along with the records of M.P. case No. 785/85 from the court of Sri N.K. Sinha, Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad and on hearing the parties, be pleased to allow this application, set aside, or quash the order dated 17.2.88 passed by Sri Shiveshwar Narain, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 28/88 and restore the order dated 28.1.88 passed by Sri N. K. Sinha, Executive Magistrate Dhanbad in M.P. case No. 785/85, and Pending hearing this application be pleased to direct that status quo as on the date of the order of the learned Revisional court shall be maintained and to pass such further order/(s) as may be deemed fit and proper. 6. The first paragraph of the present quashing application reads as under: That this application is directed against the order dated 17.2.88 passed by Sri Shiveshwar Narain, 1st. Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 28/88, reversing the order dated 28.1.88 passed by Sri N.K. Sinha. Executive Magistrate Dhanbad in M.P. case No. 785/85 whereby and where under he has been pleased to set aside the order dated 28.1.88 passed by the said learned Executive Magistrate and has further been pleased to declare possession of the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 over the disputed land. Executive Magistrate Dhanbad in M.P. case No. 785/85 whereby and where under he has been pleased to set aside the order dated 28.1.88 passed by the said learned Executive Magistrate and has further been pleased to declare possession of the opposite party Nos. 1, 2 and 3 over the disputed land. Similarly, the prayer portion of this application is as under: It is, therefore, prayed that your lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this application, call for the records of the court below and after hearing the parties be pleased to allow this application, set aside/quash the order dated 17.2.88 passed by Sri Shiveshwar Narain, 1st. Addl. Session Judge, Dhanbad in Cr. Revision No. 28/88 passed by Sri N.K. Sinha, Executive Magistrate, Dhanbad in M.P. case No. 785/85. AND Pending hearing of this application be pleased to direct that status quo as on the date of the order of the learned Revisional court shall be maintained. 7. From the aforesaid facts it is clear that the petitioner moved this Court in Cr. Misc. No. 557/88(R) with identical prayer. The said application was listed before a learned single judge (since retired) on 8.3.88 and the same was dismissed as withdrawn. The said order dated 8.3.88 reads as follows: Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application. This application is dismissed as having been withdrawn. 8. In paragraph 2 of this petition the petitioner has stated that the earlier application was withdrawn because the opposite parties submitted before the court that the dispute will be settled outside the court but ultimately as the negotiation failed, the petitioner filed the said application. From the order of dismissal, as quoted above, it is clear that before seeking permission to withdraw the case the petitioner did not pray for any liberty of the court to come again before this Court. The said dismissal order does not show as to why the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said case. 9. In the case of Surguja Transport Service V/s. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Ors. The said dismissal order does not show as to why the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the said case. 9. In the case of Surguja Transport Service V/s. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior and Ors. , the Apex court while explaining the principles of constructive resjudicata vis-a-vis the public policy, has observed as follows: In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stand on a different footing altogether. We, however, leave this question open. The Supreme Court further observed that "this rule will also discourage the litigants from indulging in Bench hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like" a suit or a petition under Article 32 since such withdrawal does not amount to res-judicata the remedy under Article 226 should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ." 10 A learned Single Judge of this Court had the occasion to deal with the similar question of maintainability of a subsequent quashing application under Sec. 482 of the Code before him, as before me. Contention on behalf of the petitioner was raised that the aforesaid Supreme Court decision was in respect of a writ application and the same should not be extended to an application under Sec. 482 of the Code. Negativating the aforesaid contention, this Court held that no doubt this observation has been made in connection with a writ application but the reason given for this is the rule of public policy. Negativating the aforesaid contention, this Court held that no doubt this observation has been made in connection with a writ application but the reason given for this is the rule of public policy. This decision has been rendered by the learned Single Judge in the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1989 (1) BLJ 62 The case of Supdt. Remembrancer of W.B. (supra) was also cited before his Lordships but it has been distinguished by holding that what was stated by the Supreme Court was that the High Court was entitled to entertain a second application for determining as to whether it would be necessary to quash the proceeding in the changed circumstance for securing the ends of justice. In the case the proceeding was quashed on that ground that the prosecutor had failed to make any progress after long lapse of time. 11. I am in respectful agreement with the aforesaid decision of this Court and I hold that this application is not maintainable as barred by principles of constructive res-judicata and public policy. 12. The argument of Mr. N.K.P. Sinha that as because the same learned Judge who had dismiss the application has again admitted the present application and as such, the same is maintainable, is frivolous and must be noticed for being rejected. his further prayer that the may be allowed to convert this application into a revision application also does not stand to reason. The first application was filed by the petitioner under Sec. 482 of the Code and the petitioner ought to have filed a revision application. The other application being dismissed, the present application under Sec. 482 of the Code has again been filed impugning the same order. This matter is pending since 1988 and even if the second prayer of Mr. N. K.P. Sinha is allowed by mistake, the revision application will be hopelessly barred by limitation and, as such, the said prayer of Mr. Sinha cannot be entertained. 13. Without going into the merits of the case I am of the opinion; that this application is not maintainable and it is dismissed as such, with cost assessed at Rs. 500.00 which shall be paid to the counsel appearing for opposite party Nos. 2 to 3.