Parallel Remedies Under Sections 482 and 397 CrPC Impermissible: Rajasthan High Court - 2026-05-22

Legal Articles | Court & Judgment Updates

High Court Shuts Door on ‘Sailing in Two Boats’: Parallel Criminal Appeals Deemed Abuse of Process

In a significant ruling concerning criminal procedural propriety, the Rajasthan High Court has firmly rejected the practice of maintaining simultaneous legal challenges against the same criminal proceedings. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the Jaipur Bench, held that petitioners cannot hedge their bets by pursuing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC ) while simultaneously challenging the framing of charges via a revision petition.

Background: A Duplicate Legal Strategy

The controversy arose from F.I.R. No. 90/2021, registered at the Mahila Thana (South), Jaipur, against the petitioners for offences under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) of the IPC .

As the trial progressed, the Metropolitan Magistrate framed charges against the accused on April 23, 2025. Unhappy with this development, the petitioners approached the Sessions Court with two revision petitions under Section 397 . Simultaneously, they persisted with their pending petitions in the High Court—which had been filed earlier to quash the F.I.R. and the cognizance order—arguing that the High Court’s inherent powers should be invoked to prevent an abuse of the process of law.

The Conflict of Remedies

The complainant’s counsel, Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv., raised a sharp preliminary objection, arguing that the petitioners were engaging in forum shopping. He contended that the order of cognizance had effectively merged into the subsequent order of framing charges, and that the current petitions were essentially moot and an abuse of court time.

The petitioners, relying on precedents such as G Sagar Suri v. State of UP and Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan , argued that the High Court’s jurisdiction under is wider than the scope of revision under and that the court has an inherent duty to secure the ends of justice at any stage.

The Legal Verdict: No Double Jeopardy of Remedies

Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand navigated the procedural thicket by invoking the Latin maxim “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” (no one should be vexed twice for the same cause). The Court emphasized that once a party elects to pursue one remedy, they are bound by that path.

The Court held that the order of taking cognizance under Section 190 merges entirely into the order of framing charges under Section 240 . Consequently, an independent challenge to the cognizance order post-framing of charges is legally unsustainable.

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies the limits of judicial intervention:

• On Parallel Remedies: "It is settled proposition of law that an aggrieved party cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies for redressal of a common grievance. By availing two parallel remedies, the petitioners intend to sail in two boats and the same cannot be permitted."
• On Judicial Efficiency: "If such practice... is allowed to sustain, there would be flood of petitions under Cr.P.C. The parties would file petitions under Cr.P.C. before the Revisional Court and petition under Cr.P.C. before this Court against the same grievance to get relief in the same matter."
• On Merger of Orders: "The order of taking cognizance under Cr.P.C. has merged into the order of framing of charge under Cr.P.C. Hence, the challenge made to the cognizance order in the instant petitions has become infructuous."

Final Decision

The Rajasthan High Court disposed of the petitions, denying the request for quashing on the grounds of "parallel remedy abuse." The petitioners have been directed to pursue their grievances solely through their pending revision petitions before the Sessions Court. The Revisional Court has been instructed to decide these matters expeditiously, ensuring that the judicial process is not further delayed by dual-tracking.

This ruling serves as a stern reminder to litigants and legal counsel that the procedural framework of the is designed for efficiency and that judicial resources are not to be squandered by litigating the same injury in two different forums simultaneously.