A litigant cannot simultaneously pursue a petition for quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC and a revision petition under Section 397 CrPC for the same grievance, as this constitutes an abuse of the court's process and a violation of the principle against parallel litigation.

JUDGMENT :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

1. The Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Diary No.7155/2026 has directed vide order dated 27.02.2026 to decide two criminal misc. petitions bearing No.7218/2022 and 7586/2022 pending before this Court, assailing the validity of the F.I.R. No.90/2021, registered at the Police Station Mahila Thana (South) Jaipur for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 & 323 IPC and the consequent proceedings arising out of the Criminal Case No.22890/2022 pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, wherein charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioners for the above stated offences.

2. Since common prayer has been made in both these petitions, hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, their arguments have been heard together and these petitions are being decided by this common order.

3. A preliminary objection has been taken by counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant-respondent Mr.V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. that during pendency of these petitions, charges have been framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498-A & 406 IPC by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated 23.04.2025 and aggrieved by the aforesaid order of framing of charges, the petitioners have already filed two different revision petitions bearing No.29/2025 and 295/2025 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur and the same have been transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan-I and are lying pending for adjudication on their merits. He submits that under these circumstances, the instant petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be rejected on this count alone that after framing of charge, the trial has commenced and the revision petition assailing the order of framing of charge is lying pending before the Revisional Court. He submits that with regard to the same cause, i.e., for quashing of consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. No.90/2021, two separate petitions before two different Courts, i.e., before this Court & before the Revisional Court are not maintainable. Hence, the instant petitions are liable to be rejected on this technical count alone.

4. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that when the instant petitions were submitted before this Court, an interim order was passed for not taking any coercive action against the petitioners. Hence, under these circumstances, the learned Trial Judge should not have passed the order of framing charges against the petitioners. Since charges have been framed during pendency of the instant petitions and on account of non-hearing of the instant petitions, the order of framing of charge has been assailed by way of filing two separate revision petitions before the Revisional Court, i.e., Court of Sessions. Counsels submit that the powers of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are inherent and the same can be exercised by this Court to prevent the abuse of process of law at any stage and there is no limit to exercise such power and the same can be exercised to secure the ends of justice. They conjointly further submit that there is no such bar under the provisions contained under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that filing of revision petition against the order of framing of charge would in any manner affect the instant petitions filed unde