The High Court at Allahabad has dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking to quash a charge-sheet and criminal proceedings, characterizing the filing as a “repeated attempt” and a clear instance of “forum hunting.” The Court found that an applicant is barred from agitating grounds in a piecemeal manner through successive petitions when those grounds were available during earlier filings.
The decision was delivered by Justice Samit Gopal in the matter of Ramdular Singh vs. State of U.P. and another (Application U/S 482 No. 8190 of 2023).
Background of the Case
The applicant, Ramdular Singh, sought to quash the charge-sheet dated February 16, 2019, the summoning order dated March 13, 2019, and the entire proceedings of Case No. 330 of 2019. These proceedings originated from Case Crime No. 119 of 2018 under Sections 149, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (I.P.C.) at Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi.
The Court noted that this was the applicant’s third time approaching the High Court for relief in the same case:
- Application No. 32968 of 2019: Dismissed on September 11, 2019, as the Court found no merit in the challenge to an interlocutory order.
- Application No. 31531 of 2022: Filed to quash the entire proceedings and a non-bailable warrant (N.B.W.). It was disposed of on October 18, 2022, with directions for the applicant to surrender and seek bail.
The current application was filed challenging the 2019 summoning order and charge-sheet nearly three years after the initial proceedings were set in motion.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the opposite party no. 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition. It was argued that the applicant was indulging in “forum hunting” by filing successive petitions for the same or related reliefs, especially since the prayer for quashing in the 2022 petition was not entertained and the applicant was directed to secure bail.
Conversely, the applicant’s counsel submitted that the previous petitions were for “different causes.” It was contended that the disposal of the 2022 petition was limited to the issuance of the N.B.W. and did not address the merits of the quashing plea. The applicant further maintained that the dispute was “purely civil in nature” and that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction should be exercised to prevent manifest injustice.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court analyzed whether a subsequent quashing petition is maintainable on grounds that were already available at the time of the first petition. Relying on the Apex Court’s recent ruling in M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan (2025), the Court noted:
“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 Section 482 CrPC, though all such pleas were very much available to him even at the first instance.”
Justice Samit Gopal observed that while there is no absolute bar against a second petition, the burden lies on the petitioner to demonstrate a “change in circumstances.” The Court found that the applicant had essentially abandoned the challenge to the proceedings in the 2022 petition and was now attempting to revive the same grounds.
On the issue of “forum shopping,” the Court cited Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. (2022) and K. Jayaram v. BDA (2022), emphasizing that litigants must disclose all past or present legal proceedings. The Court held:
“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.”
The Court further clarified that the High Court cannot utilize its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to bypass the specific statutory bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C., which prohibits the review of a final order or judgment.
The Decision
The Court concluded that the application was a repeated attempt to terminate the trial court proceedings, which had already been the subject of multiple litigations.
“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.”
The petition was dismissed.
Case Details
- Case Title: Ramdular Singh vs. State of U.P. and another
- Case Number: APPLICATION U/S 482 No. 8190 of 2023
- Bench: Justice Samit Gopal
- Date: April 8, 2026
