Successive Petitions U/S 482 CrPC Not Maintainable When Available Grounds Abandoned By Applicant In Previous Petitions: Allahabad High Court
Court reaffirms that litigants cannot agitate available grounds in a piecemeal manner through repeated inherent jurisdiction applications.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed an application filed under Section 482 CrPC, holding that a second or subsequent quashing petition is not maintainable when the grounds raised were available at the time of the initial filing. Further, the Bench noted that abandoning a prayer for quashing in an earlier petition precludes a litigant from resurrecting that specific challenge in a new filing, and would thus be ‘forum hunting’.
The Court noted that while there is no absolute bar against a second petition, the burden lies heavily on the applicant to demonstrate a significant change in circumstances warranting fresh interference. In the absence of such a shift, the Court observed that entertaining successive petitions effectively enables an accused to stall trial proceedings through ingenious litigation, which constitutes a manifest abuse of the judicial process.
Justice Samit Gopal observed, “A ground abandoned by the applicant at the time of previous two petitions, although available at that time cannot be agitated at a subsequent period of time. The challenges in this matter have been in piecemeal by the applicant. Even a challenge of proceedings in Application U/S 482 No. 31531 of 2022 (Ram Dular Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another) was abandoned by him but now the same is being taken up in a new petition being the present one”.
Senior Advocate Manish Tiwary appeared for the applicant and Ajay Singh, A.G.A.-I appeared for the opposite party.
In the matter, a case was registered at Police Station Lohta, Varanasi, where the applicant, Ramdular Singh, was charged under Sections 149, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, and 506 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was involved in a criminal conspiracy related to forgery and fraud. The applicant contended that the dispute was purely civil in nature and that the criminal proceedings were initiated with the sole intent of harassment.
For the facts, the applicant first challenged a trial court order in March 13, 2019, which was dismissed by the High Court for lack of merit. A second petition was filed in 2022 to quash the entire proceedings and a non-bailable warrant (NBW); however, the Court only granted limited relief by staying the NBW for fifteen days to allow the applicant to seek bail.
Subsequently, the applicant approached the Supreme Court after a reserved judgment in the High Court faced significant delays. The Supreme Court had then directed a time-bound disposal, leading to the current proceedings.
The Court rely on Supreme Court precedents, including M.C. Ravikumar v. D.S. Velmurugan 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1498 and Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. (2022) 7 SCC 124, to condemn the applicant’s "piecemeal" approach to litigation.
“Thus this Court holds that the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a repeated attempt of the same applicant for setting aside the proceedings against him pending before the trial court which is not maintainable. This is even forum hunting by him”, the Bench observed.
The Court dismissed the application under Section 482 CrPC, holding it to be non-maintainable, and all pending applications associated with the matter were also disposed of accordingly.
Cause Title: Ramdular Singh v. State of U.P. and another [Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:75768]
Appearances:
Applicant: Manish Tiwary, Senior Advocate, Praveen Kumar Singh, Anurag Vajpeyi, Praveen Kumar Singh, Advocates.
Opposite Party: Ajay Singh, A.G.A.-I, Arvind Kumar Rai, G.A., Prashant Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Vishesh Kumar Singh, Yogesh Singh, Advocates.