ORDER : (Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for entire records in C.C.No.101 of 2013 pending on file of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court (E.O.II) at Egmore and quash the same.) Today, these cases were listed under the caption, “For Maintainability”. 2. This petition has been filed for the second time to quash the proceedings initiated for the offences under Section 132 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962. The allegations against the petitioner is that for exporting red sander pieces/logs in violation the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is maintainable since the previous quash petition filed before this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.6886, 6890 & 6894 of 2018 was dismissed on 19.04.2022 without proper appreciation of the ground of merits. Therefore, the second quash petition is maintainable and he also placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Superintendent and Remembrance of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Mohan Singh & Others. Hence, this second quash is maintainable. 4. At the outset, I am not agreeing with the learned counsel, admittedly, the grounds raised in the petition is also raised in the previous quash petition. The main ground on which quashment is sought for that in a departmental proceedings charges were exonerated and the petitioner relieved from all the charges. Adjudicating authorities found that no charges made out against the petitioner. Therefore, the criminal proceedings would not be maintainable. 5. The same set of grounds are raised in the earlier petitions, whereas, this Court in the earlier criminal original petitions in Crl.O.P.Nos.6886, 6890 & 6894 of 2018 dated 19.04.2022, the learned Judge held that what had been raised as grounds to quash the criminal complaint registered by the Customs Officials is to be considered only during the trial and not at this stage of considering to quash and exercising the discretion under Section 482 of Cr.P.C as per the reported ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal. 6. Such view of the matter, grounds were already considered by the learned Judge. Though, there was no detailed discussion, the same ground have been raised in these petitions. Bhajan Lal. 6. Such view of the matter, grounds were already considered by the learned Judge. Though, there was no detailed discussion, the same ground have been raised in these petitions. Therefore, this Court is of the view that once the Court had considered and have dismissed the quash petition, the similar set off grounds raised to quash for second time is not maintainable. On careful reading of the judgment cited by the learned counsel, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent application for quashing the previous and earlier quash petitions was clearly different from each other. In the said circumstances, the second quash petition was entertained. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that similar set off grounds raised to quash for the second time is not maintainable. However, it is left open to the petitioner to challenge the earlier Order of this Court by way of an appeal. 7. In view of the above observation, these Criminal Original petition stands dismissed at SR stage itself. No costs.