SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 324

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Ramdular Singh - Applicants 
Versus 
State of U.P. and another - Opposite Parties
Application U/s 482 No. 8190 of 2023
Decided On : 08-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicants : Anurag Vajpeyi, Praveen Kumar Singh
For the Opposite Partiess : Arvind Kumar Rai, G.A., Prashant Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Vishesh Kumar Singh, Yogesh Singh

Repeated applications for quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not maintainable without new circumstances, as they constitute an abuse of process and forum shopping.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Application for quashing of charge-sheet and summoning order - Applicant contended that criminal proceedings were based on a civil dispute and sought to annul the proceedings under Section 482 - The court emphasized the principle of preventing abuse of process and disallowed repeated petitions for quashing, labeling it as forum shopping. The court reiterated the need for maintaining judicial discipline and the prohibition against reviewing earlier decisions through fresh applications unless new circumstances warrant it. (Paras 10, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The applicant filed multiple petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings of a criminal case arising from a civil dispute, claiming that earlier petitions were dismissed without a thorough examination of the merits. (Paras 2, 8)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the present application was merely a repetition of earlier requests for similar relief and thus not maintainable, citing an established pattern of forum shopping. Attempts to challenge orders from previous applications were deemed invalid. (Paras 17, 18)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the applicant's repeated applications for quashing the same proceedings were maintainable or constituted an abuse of the court's process. (Paras 12, 16)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that there must be a significant change in circumstances to justify a second application for quashing under Section 482. It identified the applicant’s actions as an attempt to engage in forum shopping, which undermines judicial integrity. (Paras 11, 14, 16)

Result: The application was dismissed.

Table of Content
1. hearing of the parties and record perusal. (Para 1)
2. prayer to quash proceedings under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 2)
3. prior order necessitating clarification. (Para 3)
4. summoning and proceedings stay initiated by apex court. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
5. counter affidavit and previous proceedings context. (Para 8 , 9)
6. applicant's arguments regarding civil nature of dispute. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14)
7. repeated quashing attempts hinder legitimate process. (Para 13 , 15 , 17)
8. final dismissal and disposal of applications. (Para 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

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 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top