# Ramdular Singh v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 904
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-08
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 8190 of 2023
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramdular-singh-v-state-of-u-p-anr-54734
- **Pages:** 13

## Text

904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
well as entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 725/नौ/2017 (Gulab Singh Vs. Smt. Mayya Alias
Prem Kumari and others), are not sustainable in law and are hereby quashed.

22. The present application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. is accordingly allowed.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 904
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 8190 of 2023

Ramdular Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for consideration
The applicant filed a third petition under section 482 Crpc to quash a 2019 charge-sheet and summoning
order arising out of case crime no. 119 of 2018. He had previously filed two separate petitions u/s 482 CrPC
challenging intermediate orders and processes in the same case-one of which was dismissed and the other
disposed of with specific directions to surrender-thereby abandoning or failing to obtain the relief of quashing
the entire underlying criminal proceedings.

Headnotes
A. Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 149, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506- Criminal Procedure
Code,1973-Section 482-Successive petitions for quashing-Maintainability-Applicant challenging
the summoning order and charge sheet after a delay of 3 years and after filing two earlier
petitions with limited prayers-Accused cannot raise one plea after another by repeatedly
invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court when such pleas were very much available
to him at the first instance-Challenges cannot be made in a piecemeal manner by abandoning
grounds in previous petitions and taking them up in a new petition-Petition dismissed.(Para 15
to 18)
Held
The court held that agitating a matter in parts by abandoning grounds in earlier rounds of litigation and
resurrecting them in subsequent petitions constitutes an abuse of process of law, amounts to forum shopping
and directly demeans the efficacy of the criminal justice administration system. (E-6)

Case law Cited
M.C. Ravikumar Vs D.S Velmurugan: (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1498, Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs State of W.B.: (2022)
7 SCC 124-referred to.

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Criminal Procedure Code,1973.

List of Keywords
Maintainability, Successive Petitions, Piecemeal challenges, Abandoned grounds, Forum shopping Abuse of
process.
4 All. Ramdular Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
905
Case Arising from
CRIMINAL JURISDICITON: APPLICATION U/S 482 No.- 8190 OF 2023
Ramdular Singh Vs. State of U.P. And Another
From the judgment and order dated 08.04.2026 of the High Court of judicature at Allahabad.

Appearances for Parties
Advs, for Applicant(s):
Anurag Vajpeyi, Praveen Kumar Singh
Advs. for Opposite Party(s):
Arvind Kumar Rai, G.A., Prashant Sharma,
Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Vishesh Kumar Singh, Yogesh Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and
Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for State and perused the records.

2. The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Ramdular
Singh with the following prayer:-

 "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to allow this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the charge-sheet dated 16.02.2019 as
well as summoning order dated 13.03.2019 and the entire proceedings of Case No. 330 of 2019
(State Vs. Ram Dular Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2018, under Sections
149, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi, pending in the
court of A.C.J.M.-IV, Varanasi.

 It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the entire
proceedings of Case No. 330 of 2019 (State Vs. Ram Dular Singh and others) arising out of Case
Crime No. 119 of 2018, under Sections 149, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station
Lohta, District Varanasi

 And / or this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any order which this Hon'ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. An order dated 27.05.2024 was passed by another Bench of this Court which reads as
under:-

 "1. The judgment could not be pronounced on account of sufficient time has been lapsed.

 2. The matter requires further clarification.

 3. List for further hearing before appropriate Court in due course."

4. The said order dated 27.05.2024 was subjected to challenge by the applicant Ramdular
Singh before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11919 / 2024 (Ramdular Singh
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) which stood disposed of by an order dated 02.12.2024 by which the Apex
Court directed that till such time, the matter is considered next by the High Court, there shall be
stay of proceedings before the trial court and the petitioner therein was granted liberty to seek
extension of the stay order till disposal of the petition on merits. The roster Bench of this Court was
requested to dispose of the petition in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within
three months from the date upon hearing all the parties. The said order reads as under:

 "1. Read the office report dated 29th November, 2024.

 2. Notice sought to be served on the respondent no.2 appears to have been returned with
the postal remark receiver went somewhere and will return only after 5-6 days, hence notice
could not be served."

 3. Having regard to the short issue involved in the special leave petition, we do not
consider it necessary to wait for the respondent no.2 to appear.

 4. According to the petitioner, a civil dispute has been given the colour of a criminal
offence and proceedings launched against him based on the complaint of the respondent no.2. He
had approached the High Court with a petition1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 challenging such proceedings. On 28th March, 2023, the High Court reserved
judgment without, however, passing any interim order. Exactly 14 (fourteen) months later, i.e., on
27th May, 2024, the High Court de-reserved judgment and directed listing of the said petition
before an appropriate Bench.

 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner expresses a grievance that in the absence of any
order of stay passed by the High Court, the proceedings against the petitioner which continued
have reached the stage of charges being framed, thereby effectively rendering the petition before
the High Court infructuous.

 6. We do not know the exact reason as to why the learned Judge of the High Court,
despite lapse of 14 (fourteen) months since judgment was reserved, could not deliver the judgment
and dispose of the petition one way or the other.

 7. Be that as it may, without expressing any further comment on the matter of keeping a
reserved judgment pending for 14 (fourteen) months and then not delivering the same, we request
the roster bench of the High Court to dispose of the petition in accordance with law as early as
possible, preferably within three months from date upon hearing all the parties. Should there be
any lack of cooperation from any party, the High Court may proceed according to law.

 8. Till such time, the matter is considered next by the High Court, there shall be stay of
proceedings before the trial court, i.e., the court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV,
Varanasi, in Case No. 330 of 2019. The petitioner shall be at liberty to seek extension of the order
of stay till the disposal of the 1 Criminal Misc. Application No. 8190/2023 petition on merits.

 9. With the aforesaid observation, the special leave petition stands disposed of.
4 All. Ramdular Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
907
 10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

5. Subsequently the matter came up for hearing before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court on
20.01.2025 and despite repeated calls since no one appeared to press the present application, the
same was dismissed for want of prosecution, the order passed therein reads as under:-

 "List revised. None is present for the applicant. However learned AGA for the State is
present.

 Vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a direction was
issued to decide the instant matter, expeditiously.

 Despite repeated call, none appeared for the applicant to press the instant application.

 Case is dismissed for want of prosecution."

6. The order-sheet reflected that an application for recall was filed which was allowed vide
order dated 08.04.2025 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the petition was restored to
its original number and status with a further order that the trial court shall defer the proceedings of
the trial till the disposal of this application before this Court, the order reads as under:-

 "Order on Recall Application

 Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A.
for State opposite party 1 and Mr. Arvind Kumar Rai, the learned counsel representing first
informant opposite party 2.

 Perused the record.

 This recall application has been filed by applicant seeking recall of the order dated
20.1.2025 passed by His Lordship Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J. For ready reference, same is
reproduced herein under:-

 "List revised. None is present for the applicant. However learned AGA for the State is
present.

 Vide order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a direction was
issued to decide the instant matter, expeditiously.

 Case is dismissed for want of prosecution."

 Learned counsel for applicant submits that in view of the averment made in paragraph 5
of the affidavit filed in support of present application, he could not appear before Court at the time
when present application was taken up in revised call. He, therefore, submits that there is no
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deliberate negligence or laches on the part of applicant in pursuing the present application. As
such, the order dated 20.1.2025 is liable to be recalled."

 Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State opposite party 1 and Mr. Arvind
Kumar Rai, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2 have opposed the
present application. However, they could not dislodge the factual/equitable submissions urged by
the learned counsel for applicant in support of prayer for recall of order dated 20.1.2025.

 Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State opposite
party 1, Mr. Arvind Kumar Rai, the learned counsel representing first informant opposite party 2
and upon perusal of record, this Court finds there is no deliberate negligence or laches on the part
of learned counsel for applicant in pursuing this application. Cause shown for non appearance of
the learned counsel for applicant at the time when present application was taken up in revised call
is devoid of any deliberate negligence or laches.

 In view of above, the recall application filed by applicant is liable to be allowed.

 Accordingly, the order dated 20.1.2025 is, hereby, recalled. The recall application shall
stand allowed.

 Order on the Application Under Section 482 Cr. P. C.

 In view of order of date passed on the recall application, the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P. C. shall stand restored to its original number and status.

 In view of observations made by the Apex Court, vide order dated 02.12.2024 passed in
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No (s). 11919/2024 (Ramdular Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.),
Court below shall defer the proceedings of the trial till the disposal of this application before this
Court.

 List for admission on 7.5.2025."

7. In the meantime, a counter affidavit dated 14.03.2023 on behalf of the opposite party
no.2 to which a rejoinder affidavit 23.03.2023 was filed on behalf of the applicant.

8. At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has submitted that
although an order dated 18.10.2022 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 31531 of 2022 (Ram Dular
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit but the fact
that the said petition was also filed to quash the entire proceedings of the said case along with the
prayer to quash the order dated 12.09.2022 passed by the A.C.J.M.-IV, Varanasi in Case No. 330 of
2019, arising out of Case Crime No. 435 of 2017, Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi stood
disposed of by the said order giving directions for consideration of bail of the accused applicant
therein and thus the prayer for quashing of the entire proceedings was not entertained by the Court
and thus the present application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. being the second application for the same prayer is
not maintainable. It is further submitted that even the fact that the applicant had even earlier also
4 All. Ramdular Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
909
filed an Application U/S 482 No. 32968 of 2019 (Ram Dular Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another)
challenging the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the trial court which was also dismissed vide
order dated 11.09.2019 and the said order is annexed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit would also
render the present petition not maintainable in as much as even at that point of time the grounds as
are being tried to be raised in the present petition were available but were not taken up before this
Court in the 482 Cr.P.C. petitions. The said orders have been placed before the Court which read as
under:-

 (i) Application U/S 482 No. 32968 of 2019 (Ram Dular Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
Another):

 "Heard applicant's counsel as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

 Counsel for the applicant has not been able to point out any such illegality, impropriety
or incorrectness, much less than any abuse of Court's process which may permit this court to
interfere in the impugned order. This is interlocutory order in nature.

 In the Trial Court, the reasons for absence of the accused could not be explained. Lower
revisional court also sought explanation but the same could not be given even before lower
revisional court.

 Counsel has been fair enough to admit that accused has not obtained bail so far and still
is seeking his discharge without submitting to the jurisdiction of the Court. In such circumstances,
there is absolutely no good reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

 The application lacks merit and it is dismissed."

 (ii) Application U/S 482 No. 31531 of 2022 (Ram Dular Singh Vs. State of U.P. and
Another):

 "आवेदक क ओर िे धारा 482 दं०प्र०िं० के िन्तगत यह आवेदन पत्र, मु०ि०िं० 0119 िन
2018, िन्तगत धारा 419, 420, 467, 468, 504, 506 471 भा०दं०िव०, थाना लोहटा, िजला वाराणि में प्रेिषत
आरोप पत्र िद० 12-9-2022 िे उद््‌भूत वाद िं० 330 िन 2019, जो फोथत ए०ि ० जे०एम०, वाराणि के
न्यायालय में लम्बित है तथा इिमें पाररत आदेश िद० 12-9-2022 के िवरूद्ध दायर िकया गया है।

 आवेदक के िवद्वान ििधवक्ता ने पूरक शपथपत्र दाम्बखल िकया, इिे पत्रावल पर रखा जाय।

 आवेदक के िवद्वान ििधवक्ता, िवपक्ष िं० 2 के िवद्वान ििधवक्ता एवं िवद्वान िपर शािक य
ििधवक्ता को िुना तथा पत्रावल का पररश लन िकया।

 आवेदक के िवद्वान ििधवक्ता का कथन है िक िनयत ितिथ पर आवेदक के िवर न्यायालय में
िनुपम्बथथत हो जाने के कारण उनके िवरूद्ध एन०ब ०डब्लू० जार कर िदया गया है, िब आवेदक िवर
न्यायालय में िनयत ितिथ पर उपम्बथथत होने को तत्पर हैं।
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 आवेदक के िवद्वान ििधवक्ता के िनुरोध के दृििगत यह आवेदन पत्र िम्बन्तम रूप िे िनस्ताररत
िकया जाता है तथा उपरोक्त वाद में पाररत एन०ब ०डब्लू० आदेश का िकयान्वयन आज िे 15 िदन के िलए
थथिगत िकया जाता है। यिद आवेदक द्वारा 15 िदन के िन्दर आदेश का िनुपालन िुिनिित नह ं िकया जाता
तो िंबंिधत िवर न्यायालय िनयमानुिार आवश्यक कायतवाह करने को स्वतंत्र है।"

9. It is submitted that as such this is the third petition by the same applicant with an
intention to challenge the proceedings of the said case and get them quashed having been
unsuccessful in two earlier petitions which is an attempt of forum hunting also.

10. Learned counsel for the applicant in order to meet out the said objection of learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that he has in all fairness disclosed the factum and
filing of the said two earlier petitions in paragraph nos. 2 & 3 of the affidavit and now by way of
the present application is challenging the validity of the charge-sheet dated 16.02.2019 as well as
the summoning order dated 13.03.2019 and the entire proceedings in the present matter. He has
placed before the Court paragraph 2, 3 & 4 of the affidavit which reads as under:-

 "2. That prior to the present case, two more applications were filed under section 482
Cr.P.C. for a different cause in which one application under section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed
challenging the impugned order dated 11.09.2019 and it was dismissed on the ground stating that
there is absolutely no good reason for the Hon'ble Court to interfere with the impugned order as
the applicant has not obtained bail and still is seeking his discharge without submitting to the
jurisdiction of the Court. Copy of the order dated 11.09.2019 passed by this Hon'ble Court is being
filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.1 to this affidavit.

 3. That further the applicant had also filed another application under section 482 Cr.P.C.
challenging the coercive processes issued against the applicant vide order dated 12.09.2022
pending before the Court of learned ACJM-IV, Varanasi in which this Hon'ble Court vide order
dated 18.10.2022 was pleased to dispose off the petition with the direction that the applicant shall
surrender before the court below. Copy of the order dated 18.10.2022 passed by this Hon'ble Court
is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.2 to this affidavit.

 4. That by way of the present application, the applicant is challenging the legality and
validity of the charge sheet dated 16.02.2019 as well as summoning order dated 13.03.2019 in
Case No.330 of 2019 (State Vs. Ram Dular Singh and others) arising out of Case crime no.119 of
2018 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Lohta, District
Varanasi, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.-IV, Varanasi."

11. Further learned counsel for the applicant submits that in so far as the prayer for
quashing of the entire proceedings as prayed for in Application U/S 482 No. 31531 of 2022 is
concerned, although the said petition stood disposed of finally vide order dated 18.10.2022 but the
same was not considered and the applicant was directed to appear before the trial court within 15
days and secure bail and till that time the execution of the N.B.W. against him was stayed. It is
submitted that thus the said petition during its disposal was confined only to issuance of N.B.W. It
is submitted that thus the present petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable and cannot be dismissed
4 All. Ramdular Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
911
on the ground of being a second petition and the objection as raised at the inception by learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 is totally misplaced.

12. Further learned counsel for the applicant argued that the proceedings are an abuse of
process of Court and the two orders passed by the High Court do not amount to review of the order
passed by the co-ordinate bench in the quashing petition being Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482
No. 31531 of 2022 (Ram Dular Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another), since the said order did not
address the issue of quashing although a prayer for quashing was in it but the relief therein was
confined only to the aspect of issuance of non - bailable warrant and liberty was granted with
regards to it only and thus this petition is maintainable raising the grounds/pleas which were not
effectively raised in the said quashing petition. He submitted further that the High Court has the
power to exercise its inherent jurisdiction at any stage of criminal proceedings in order to prevent
abuse of law and manifest injustice and exercise of such power cannot be termed to be in violation
of the provisions of Section362Cr.P.C.

13. He lastly by addressing on the merits of the matter submitted that the'dispute inter
se'between the parties is purely civil in nature and the admitted allegations can in no circumstance
give rise to criminal prosecution. The criminal proceedings have been initiated against the accusedapplicant with the sole intent of falsely implicating and harassing him.

14. This Court thus proceeds to examine the matter and this petition with the prayer as
aforesaid as to whether this petition is maintainable at this instance or not.

15. The facts which cull out in the present matter are as under:-

 (i) The applicant approached this Court by filing a petition being Application U/S 482
No. 32968 of 2019 (Ram Dular Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) with the following prayers:-

 "It is therefore most respectfully prayed that Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to
allow the present application and quashed/set aside the order dated 13-8-2019 passed by
Incharge/Session Judge, Varanasi and further stay the proceedings of Criminal Case no-330 of
20194, C.C. No 119 0/2018, pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-IV,
Varanasi during the pendency of Criminal Revision no-220 of 2019 otherwise applicant will suffer
great loss and injury.

 And/ or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and
proper under the circumstances of the case."

 (ii) The said petition stood dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2019 passed by another
Bench of this Court (Quoted in Para 8 (i) above).

 (iii) Subsequently the applicant filed a petition being Application U/S 482 No. 31531 of
2022 (Ram Dular Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) with the prayer to quash the order dated
12.09.2022 passed by the A.C.J.M., Varanasi and to quash the entire proceedings as well.
912 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 (iv) The order dated 12.09.2022 was an order by which N.B.W. was issued against the
applicant.

 (v) The said petition Application U/S 482 No. 31531 of 2022 came to be disposed by an
order dated 18.10.2022 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court directing the applicant therein
to appear within 15 days before the trial court concerned and till the said period the operation of the
N.B.W. was stayed (Quoted in Para 8 (ii) above).

 (vi) Subsequently this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. comes out by the same applicant for an
effort to get the proceedings against him terminated by an order from this Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
which are pending before the trial court concerned.

 (vii) The order summoning is dated 13.03.2019 which has been challenged after about 03
years before this Court and in between two petitions u/s 482 Cr.P.C. were filed by the same
applicant before this Court with different prayers (amongst which one of the petitions carries a
prayer to quash the proceedings of the trial court as well) which have been detailed as above.

 (viii) The law on the subject is trite.

 A. The Apex Court in the case of M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan : 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 1498 took up a question for consideration which reads as under:

 "11.The short question that arises for our consideration is Whether a second quashing
petition under Section 482CrPCwould be maintainable on the grounds/pleas that were available to
be raised even at the time of filing/decision of the first quashing petition ?"

 The matter was the finally decided as under:

 "13. This Court in catena of judgments has held that it is not open to an accused person
to raise one plea after the other, by repeatedly invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court
under Section482CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available to him even at the first
instance. We may hasten to add that there is no sweeping rule to the effect that a second quashing
petition under Section482CrPCis not maintainable and its maintainability will depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case. However, the onus to show that there arose a change in
circumstances warranting entertainment of a subsequent quashing petition would be on the person
filing the said petition. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to the observations made by this
Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of UP, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399, which are
extracted below for ready reference:

 "11. ... Though it is clear that there can be no blanket rule that a second petition under
Section482Cr. P.C.would not lie in any situation and it would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of the individual case,it is not open to a person aggrieved to raise one plea after the
other, by invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section482Cr. P.C., though all
such pleas were very much available even at the first instance. Permitting the filing of successive
petitions under Section482Cr. P.C.ignoring this principle would enable an ingenious
4 All. Ramdular Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
913
accused to effectively stall the proceedings against him to suit his own interest and convenience,
by filing one petition after another under Section482Cr. P.C., irrespective of when the cause
therefor arose. Such abuse of process cannot be permitted."

 (Emphasis Supplied)

 14. Furthermore, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the High Court in the
second quashing petition amounted to review (plain and simple) of the earlier order passed by the
co-ordinate bench of the High Court in the first quashing petition, since there was admittedly no
change in circumstances and no new grounds/pleas became available to the accused-respondents,
after passing of the order of dismissal in the first quashing petition. The order passed by the High
Court is in gross disregard to all tenets of law as Section362CrPCexpressly bars review of a
judgment or final order disposing of a case except to correct some clerical or arithmetical error.

 15. This Court has time and again held that the High Courts while exercising their
inherent jurisdiction under Section482CrPCcannot override a specific bar laid down by other
provisions ofCrPC, i.e., to say that the High Court is not empowered to review its own decision
under the purported exercise of its inherent powers. To fortify the aforesaid conclusion, we may
gainfully refer to the observations made by this Court in the case ofSimrikhiav.Dolley
Mukherjee and Chhabi Mukherjee, (1990) 2 SCC 437, the relevant portions whereof are quoted
below for ease of reference:

 "6. In Superintendent & Remembrancer of Legal Affairsv.Mohan Singh,(1975) 3
SCC 706, this Court held that Section 561A preserves the inherent power of the High Court to
make such orders as it deems fit to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends
of justice and the High Court must therefore exercise its inherent powers having regard to the
situation prevailing at the particular point of time when its inherent jurisdiction is sought to be
invoked. In that case the facts and circumstances obtaining at the time of the subsequent
application were clearly different from what they were at the time of the earlier application. The
question as to the scope and ambit of the inherent power of the High Court vis-a-vis an earlier
order made by it was, therefore, not concluded by this decision.

 7.The inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be invoked to override bar of
review u/s 362. It is clearly stated inSooraj Deviv.Pyare Lal,(1981) 1 SCC 500that the
inherent power of the Court cannot be exercised for doing that which is specifically prohibited
by the Code. The law is therefore clear that the inherent power cannot be exercised for doing
that which cannot be done on account of the bar under other provisions of the Code. The court
is not empowered to review its own decision under the purported exercise of inherent power.We
find that the impugned order in this case is in effect one reviewing the earlier order on a
reconsideration of the same materials. The High Court has grievously erred in doing so. Even on
merits, we do not find any compelling reasons to quash the proceedings at that stage."

(Emphasis supplied)
914 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 16.In the instant case, the quashing by the High Court of a similar complaint, i.e.,
Criminal Complaint No. 41 of 2015 filed by the complainant against the accused-respondents in
respect of properties situated at Thanjavurvideorder dated 9thMarch, 2020 was an event that
happened well before the dismissal of the first quashing petition under Section482CrPCand
the said ground/plea was manifestly available to the accused-respondents while seeking
adjudication of the first quashing petition. That being the situation, the accused-respondents were
not at liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court raising the aforesaid ground/plea
at a later point of time by filing the second quashing petition.

 B. The Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar Ghaiv.State of W.B. :(2022) 7 SCC
124has in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 17 while dealing with the issue of forum shopping and
deprecating it has stated as follows:

 "11.Predominantly, the Indian Judiciary has time and again reiterated that forum
shopping takes several hues and shades but the concept of forum shopping has not been
rendered an exclusive definition in any Indian statute. Forum shopping as perMerriam-Webster
Dictionaryis:

 The practice of choosing the court in which to bring an action from among those courts
that could properly exercise jurisdiction based on determination of which court is likely to provide
the most favourable outcome.

 12.The Indian Judiciary's observation and obiter dicta has aided in streamlining the
concept of forum shopping in the Indian legal system. This Court has condemned the practice of
forum shopping by litigants and termed it as an abuse of law and also deciphered different
categories of forum shopping.

 13.A two-Judge Bench of this Court inUnion of Indiav.Cipla Ltd.[Union of
Indiav.Cipla Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC 262] has laid down factors which lead to the practice of forum
shopping or choice of forum by the litigants which are as follows : (SCC pp. 318-20, paras 148-51
& 155)

 148. A classic example of forum shopping is when litigant approaches one court for relief
but does not get the desired relief and then approaches another court for the same relief. This
occurred inRajiv Bhatiav.State (NCT of Delhi)[Rajiv Bhatiav.State (NCT of Delhi),
(1999) 8 SCC 525]. The respondent mother of a young child had filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court and apparently did not get the required relief from that
Court. She then filed a petition in the Delhi High Court also for a writ of habeas corpus and
obtained the necessary relief. Notwithstanding this, this Court did not interfere with the order
[Priyanka Bhatiav.State (NCT of Delhi), 1999 SCC OnLine Del 192] passed by the Delhi High
Court for the reason that this Court ascertained the views of the child and found that she did not
want to even talk to her adoptive parents and therefore the custody of the child granted by the
Delhi High Court to the respondent mother was not interfered with. The decision of this Court is on
its own facts, even though it is a classic case of forum shopping.
4 All. Ramdular Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
915
 149. InArathi Bandiv.Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao[Arathi Bandiv.Bandi
Jagadrakshaka Rao, (2013) 15 SCC 790 : (2014) 5 SCC (Civ) 475] this Court noted that
jurisdiction in a court is not attracted by the operation or creation of fortuitous circumstances. In
that case, circumstances were created by one of the parties to the dispute to confer jurisdiction on
a particular High Court. This was frowned upon by this Court by observing that to allow the
assumption of jurisdiction in created circumstances would only result in encouraging forum
shopping.

 150. Another case of creating circumstances for the purposes of forum shopping
wasWorld Tanker Carrier Corpn.v.SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd.[World Tanker Carrier
Corpn.v.SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 310] wherein it was observed that the
respondent/plaintiff had made a deliberate attempt to bring the cause of action, namely, a collision
between two vessels on the high seas within the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court. Bringing
one of the vessels to Bombay in order to confer jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court had the
character of forum shopping rather than anything else.

 151. Another form of forum shopping is taking advantage of a view held by a particular
High Court in contrast to a different view held by another High Court. InAmbica
Industriesv.CCE[Ambica Industriesv.CCE, (2007) 6 SCC 769] the assessee was from
Lucknow. It challenged an order [Ambica Industriesv.CCE, 2003 SCC OnLine CESTAT 1365]
passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Cestat) located in Delhi
before the Delhi High Court.Cestathad jurisdiction over the State of Uttar Pradesh, NCT of
Delhi and Maharashtra. The Delhi High Court did not entertain the proceedings initiated by the
assessee for want of territorial jurisdiction. Dismissing the assessee's appeal this Court gave the
example of an assessee affected by an assessment order in Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the
Delhi High Court to take advantage of the law laid down by the Delhi High Court or an assessee
affected by an order of assessment made at Bombay invoking the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High
Court to take advantage of the law laid down by it and consequently evade the law laid down by the
Bombay High Court. It was said that this could not be allowed and circumstances such as this
would lead to some sort of judicial anarchy.

 ***

 155. The decisions referred to clearly lay down the principle that the court is required to
adopt a functional test vis--vis the litigation and the litigant. What has to be seen is whether there
is any functional similarity in the proceedings between one court and another or whether there is
some sort of subterfuge on the part of a litigant. It is this functional test that will determine whether
a litigant is indulging in forum shopping or not.

 14.Forum shopping has been termed as disreputable practice by the courts and has no
sanction and paramountcy in law. In spite of this Court condemning the practice of forum
shopping, Respondent 2 filed two complaints i.e. a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the
Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi on 6-6-2012 and a complaint which was eventually registered as FIR
No. 168 under Sections 406, 420, 120-BIPC before PS Bowbazar, Calcutta on 28-3-2013 i.e. one in
Delhi and one complaint in Kolkata. The complaint filed in Kolkata was a reproduction of the
916 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complaint filed in Delhi except with the change of place of occurrence in order to create a
jurisdiction.
***********

 17.A
two-Judge
Bench
of
this
Court
inK.
Jayaramv.BDA[K.
Jayaramv.BDA, (2022) 12 SCC 815 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1194] observed : (SCC para 14)

 14. It is necessary for us to state here that in order to check multiplicity of proceedings
pertaining to the same subject-matter and more importantly to stop the menace of soliciting inconsistent
orders through different judicial forums by suppressing material facts either by remaining silent or by
making misleading statements in the pleadings in order to escape the liability of making a false statement,
we are of the view that the parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigations either
past or present concerning any part of the subject-matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In
case, according to the parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings or court litigations were or are pending,
they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in
accordance with law.

The said petition was dismissed on various counts including forum hunting.

16. A ground abandoned by the applicant at the time of previous two petitions, although
available at that time cannot be agitated at a subsequent period of time. The challenges in this
matter have been in piecemeal by the applicant. Even a challenge of proceedings in Application
U/S 482 No. 31531 of 2022 (Ram Dular Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) was abandoned by
him but now the same is being taken up in a new petition being the present one.

17. Thus this Court holds that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a repeated
attempt of the same applicant for setting aside the proceedings against him pending before the trial
court which is not maintainable. This is even forum hunting by him.

18. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is thus dismissed.

19. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 916
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 9282 of 2022

Fatima Begum & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties