Court Condemns Forum Shopping and Repeated Invocation of Inherent Jurisdiction
In a significant ruling on April 8, 2026, the Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Samit Gopal, dismissed the application filed by Ramdular Singh seeking to quash the charge-sheet and summoning order related to Case No. 330 of 2019. The case involves multiple charges under sections 149, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, pending before the A.C.J.M.-IV in Varanasi.
The judgment emphasized that a second petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not maintainable if the grounds for the petition were available during the filing of the first petition. The court held that filing successive petitions amounts to an abuse of process and forum shopping, which is condemned in legal practice.
The court reviewed the procedural history, noting that Ramdular Singh had previously filed two petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge various proceedings related to the case. The first petition was dismissed as it lacked merit, and the second was disposed of with directions to the applicant to secure bail, addressing only the issuance of a non-bailable warrant and not the quashing of proceedings.
Justice Gopal asserted that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked repeatedly to raise pleas that were abandoned or not raised earlier. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's decision in M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan, reinforcing that permitting successive petitions could lead to forum shopping, which undermines judicial integrity.
Additionally, the court highlighted the prohibition against reviewing its own decisions under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which bars revisiting judgments except for correcting clerical errors. This principle further invalidated Ramdular Singh's attempt to file a second quashing petition.
The judgment also touched upon the concept of forum shopping, describing it as seeking favorable jurisdiction by filing successive petitions in different courts for the same relief. The court reiterated its stance against such practices, which are considered disreputable and an abuse of legal processes.
Ultimately, the court concluded that Ramdular Singh's petition represents a repeated attempt to set aside the proceedings, categorizing it as forum hunting. The petition was dismissed, and any pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Bottom Line:
A second quashing petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable if the grounds/pleas were available at the time of filing the first quashing petition. Repeated invocation of inherent jurisdiction for the same relief amounts to forum shopping and abuse of process of law.
Statutory provision(s): Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Ramdular Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2879873
