Back
High Court Halts Bid to Weaponize Multiple Criminal Cases Over Single Event
In a significant ruling against misuse of criminal process, the quashed an FIR registered at , holding that litigants cannot splinter facts arising from a single occurrence into separate complaints across different courts.
Justice M.A. Chowdhary allowed the petition filed by Vishvendra Singh and set aside the order dated passed by the , along with FIR No. 327/2021 under .
The Backdrop of a Real Estate Feud
The dispute traces its roots to allegations of a massive real estate fraud between 2009-2014 involving . Singh claims he became a victim and later a whistleblower, leading to several FIRs against builder Ashish Bhalla and his WTC group of companies. In retaliation, — one of the group entities — initiated criminal proceedings against Singh in Srinagar, Budgam, and New Delhi over an alleged Twitter trend titled “Anti India WTC – TALIBAN – ACT” following an investment event the company organised at Humhama in .
Singh approached the High Court seeking quashing of the Budgam FIR, contending that the respondent had already secured a summoning order from the on identical facts just weeks earlier and had concealed this fact while approaching the Budgam court.
How Parallel Litigation Was Built
Respondent No. 2 filed a private complaint under before the on , resulting in a summoning order. Barely days later it approached the Special Mobile Magistrate Budgam under on the very same set of allegations. It later filed yet another proceeding through a sister concern at .
The High Court observed that each forum was kept in the dark about the proceedings pending before the other courts.
Petitioner’s Case of Harassment and
Singh argued that the company was engaged in egregious to exhaust his resources. He highlighted that both parties are Delhi residents yet the proceedings were triggered in far-flung Srinagar and Budgam. He also placed on record incidents of stalking that occurred whenever he visited Srinagar to attend court hearings.
How the Company Defended the Proceedings
The , through its counsel, maintained that the two sets of proceedings dealt with distinct offences — defamation in Srinagar and forgery/public mischief in Budgam — and therefore would not apply. Respondent No. 2 contended that the “ ” was inapplicable because one matter was a private complaint while the other was an FIR.
Court’s Scathing Observations on Concealment
Justice Chowdhary found the conduct of the respondent deeply concerning:
“This deliberate concealment of prior proceedings suggests an attempt to obtain conflicting or cumulative judicial orders by keeping different courts in the dark. Such conduct amounts to a and a .”
The court further noted:
“The facts of the cannot be allowed to be broken into pieces so as to file multiple complaints. All the offences, arising out of the are to be investigated and tried together is the scheme of criminal law.”
Reliance on Supreme Court Precedents
The judgment drew heavily from and , reaffirming the settled position that there cannot be a in respect of the . The court held that the substratum of allegations in the Budgam FIR and the Srinagar complaint was identical — the alleged social media activity — and merely changing the IPC sections does not render them distinct.
Final Relief Granted by the Court
Allowing the petition, Justice Chowdhary concluded:
“In light of the extensive findings regarding the suppression of facts, the verbatim facts in both the complaints… this Court is of the firm view that the continuation of the subsequent Budgam FIR would be a travesty of justice, being .”
The order of the Budgam Magistrate and FIR No. 327/2021 along with all consequential proceedings stand quashed. This decision reinforces the principle that criminal law cannot be used as a tool for corporate vendetta through multi-jurisdictional harassment.
Legal reports have summarised the ruling as affirming that splitting a single cause of action into multiple criminal cases is legally impermissible.
