"Can't Sail In Two Boats": Rajasthan High Court Rejects Parallel Challenge To Cognizance And Framing Of Charges
The Rajasthan High Court has held that even though multiple remedies might exist with a litigant, once selection was made regarding the remedy to be pursued, that operated as a bar on simultaneous initiation of a parallel remedy.The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the aggrieved party could not be allowed to “sail in two boats” by availing parallel remedies for common...
The Rajasthan High Court has held that even though multiple remedies might exist with a litigant, once selection was made regarding the remedy to be pursued, that operated as a bar on simultaneous initiation of a parallel remedy.
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand opined that the aggrieved party could not be allowed to “sail in two boats” by availing parallel remedies for common grievance. It was stated that such practice had to be deprecated.
“Once a party chooses to pursue one remedy (eg. revision), he/she is bound by it and cannot switch over to another. Essentially a litigant must choose his/her path and he/she cannot be allowed to “hedge his bets” by way of pursuing two parallel remedies simultaneously for espousing the same cause.”
“If such practice of filing two separate petitions, i.e., revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. against the order of framing of charges before the Revisional Court and the other petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against the order of cognizance is allowed, it would open a pandora box to the litigants to avail two separate remedies for redressal of common grievance before two different Courts. This Court is already flooded with lot of criminal misc. petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.”
For context, the Court was hearing a petition filed under Section 482, CrPC, for quashing of FIR, and challenging the charge sheet as well as order of cognizance. However, at the same time, the petitioners had filed revision petitions before the Revisional Court against the order of taking cognizance and framing of charges.
An FIR was filed against the petitioners under Sections 498A and 406, IPC, post which charge sheet was filed and cognizance was taken. The petitioners had filed present petitions, challenging the charge-sheet and the cognizance, and seeking quashing of the FIR.
During pendency of these petition, charges were framed against the petitioners against which revision petitions were filed before the revisional court, which were also pending adjudication.
In this background, a preliminary objection was raised by the complainant in the present petitions, that considering that revision petitions were also filed by the petitioners, the present petitions were not maintainable.
On the contrary, it was argued by the petitioners that there was no bar under CrPC to the effect that filing of revision petition against the order of framing charges, affected the petitions filed under Section 482, CrPC.
After hearing the contentions, the Court held that an aggrieved party could not be allowed to avail two parallel remedies for redressal of a common grievance. Such exercise was termed as abuse of the court's process.
The Court made reference to the principle of Roman Jurisprudence “Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa”, which meant “no man should be vexed twice for the same cause” i.e. no one could be allowed to avail two parallel remedies for the same matter at the same time.
The Court also highlighted the even otherwise, when the court framed charges against the accused, the order of cognizance ceased to have independent existence. Hence, no separate grievance in relation to the cognizance could be entertained post framing of charges.
“The order of taking cognizance under Section 190 Cr.P.C. has merged into the order of framing of charge under Section 240 Cr.P.C. Hence, the challenge made to the cognizance order in the instant petitions has become infructuous and these petitions are not maintainable. At this stage, under the changed circumstances, the remedy, if any, lies in assailing the order of framing of charges.”
In this background, the Court held that since the petitioners had already availed remedy against the order of framing charges by filing the revision petitions, the present petitions under Section 482, CrPC, were not maintainable.
Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of.
Title: Anil Prakash Goyal & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr., and other connected matter
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 205