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

2026 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 755

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
M. A. Chowdhury, J
Vishvendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
UT of Jammu and Kashmir – Respondent
CRM(M) No. 162/2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikas Malik, Mushtaq Ahmad Dar
For the Respondents: Bikramdeep Singh (Dy. AG)

A second FIR or criminal complaint based on the same occurrence or transaction is legally impermissible. All offences arising from a single incident must be investigated and tried together to prevent the abuse of the judicial process, forum shopping, and the harassment of the accused.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - S. 156(3) and S. 200 - Indian Penal Code - Ss. 469, 505(2), 499, and 500 - Multiple FIRs and complaints for the same transaction - Principles of double jeopardy and abuse of process - Court held that a second FIR or private complaint on the same occurrence is impermissible - Permitting successive proceedings for the same transaction is contrary to the scheme of criminal law and constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. (Paras 16, 17, 18, 19, 21)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Delhi resident, faced multiple criminal proceedings initiated by the second respondent in Srinagar, Budgam, and New Delhi, all based on a single alleged social media incident. The petitioner alleged the second respondent engaged in forum shopping to harass him after he exposed a real estate scam. The Budgam Magistrate had ordered an FIR registration suppressing the fact that a prior complaint for the same occurrence was already pending before the CJM, Srinagar.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that both the complaint in Srinagar and the FIR in Budgam were based on identical facts and allegations. The initiation of multiple parallel proceedings across different jurisdictions constituted an abuse of the process of law and an attempt to harass the petitioner. The Court emphasized that all offences arising from the same occurrence must be investigated and tried together.

Issues: Whether the registration of a second FIR/complaint based on the same set of facts involving the same parties constitutes an abuse of process and whether the principle of 'sameness' bars such subsequent proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The substratum of the allegations in both proceedings was identical; therefore, splitting a single cause of action into multiple criminal complaints by changing the nomenclature of the offences is legally impermissible.

Result: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order and FIR were quashed.

Table of Content
1. parties' contentions regarding the legality of multiple firs and allegations of suppressing facts. (Para 10)
2. court's disapproval of forum shopping and the requirement for a single investigation for one occurrence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
3. final outcomequashing the impugned fir and proceedings. (Para 22 , 23)

JUDGEMENT

01. The petitioner, through the medium of the instant petition, has challenged order dated 1st of November, 2021 passed by the learned Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam (for short “the Budgam Magistrate”) in a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 herein, under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC) directing registration of FIR. Besides, the petitioner also seeks quashing of the FIR No. 327/2021 dated 1st of November, 2021 registered at Police Station, Budgam under Sections 469 and 505 (II) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

02. The petitioner, a resident of Delhi, claims to be one of the several victims of a huge real estate fraud hatched between 2009-2014, wherein several hundred crores of rupees had been siphoned out of a real estate Developer company-AN Buildwell Pvt Ltd (ANB) by one ill-famed builder Ashish Bhalla who used the said diverted funds from ANB to create his own WTC group of companies, as a consequence whereof, multiple FIRs came to be registered, being FIR No. 114/2016, 116/2016 and 64/2016, all investigated by EOW, Delhi; that the respondent No.2 herein is one of the companies of WTC Group owned by the aforesaid notorious builder Ashish Bhalla, which has recently started selling residential plots over agricultural land in Faridabad and Haryana without even obtaining mandatory DTCP License and RERA Registration, consequent to which authorities have already begun action against it on the complaint filed by Petitioner herein.

03. Petitioner alleges that exasperated by the petitioner's Whistleblow of the above mentioned Scam and as a counter blast to Petitioner's police Complaint filed at Delhi, the respondent No. 2 hatched a conspiracy to neutralize the petitioner and, hence, vide Email dated 6th of September, 2021, the respondent placed a brochure on petitioner's email and, thereafter, instituted Complaint No. 775/2021 u/s 200 Cr. P.C. on 7th of October, 2021 at Srinagar and obtained a summoning order dated 7th of October, 2021 from the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM, Srinagar against the Petitioner herein; that, after obtaining above referred summoning order dated 7th of October, 2021 at Srinagar, the respondent No. 2 concealing that he had also approached the Court at Srinagar and moved U/s 156(3) Cr PC, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Budgam and obtained another order dated 1st of November, 2021 for registration of FIR at Police Station, Budgam based on same set of facts on which the above summoning order dated 7th of October, 2021 had been issued by the learned CJM, Srinagar.

04. Petitioner next pleaded that the respondent No. 2 not only used same facts to pursue the above referred two parallel criminal proceedings at Srinagar and Budgam, but had also used the same facts to file third criminal proceeding in New Delhi (through its sister concern u/s 156(3) Cr PC at Saket Court, New Delhi, on 6th of December, 2021; that the respondent No.2 concealed from the Courts at Delhi, Budgam and Srinagar about the factum of same set of facts/ allegations/ incidents being used to pursue three parallel criminal cases against the petitioner herein; that around 1st of November, 2021, petitioner herein received summons from the Court of learned CJM, Srinagar in respect of Complaint No. 775/2021; that the petitioner was shocked to see that despite both sides being based in Delhi, the jurisdiction of the Court at Srinagar had been maliciously selected by respondent No. 2; that, thereafter, the petitioner, barely being able to assess the situation, approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by way of filing Transfer Petiti

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