The High Court of Chhattisgarh holds that filing successive applications under Section 156(3) CrPC before different Magistrates on identical facts, without disclosing prior dismissal, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process. The Court affirms existing precedent, clarifying that post-dismissal, the only remedy is revision, not re-filing. The judgment is binding authority for courts in Chhattisgarh and authoritative guidance elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMP/1147/2022 of ABHISHEK KUMAR VERMA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010236792022 |
| Date of Registration | 19-07-2022 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure (Section 156(3) CrPC) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
Once an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is dismissed on merits and not challenged in revision, it attains finality. Filing a second application before a different Magistrate on the same facts, without disclosing the earlier dismissal, constitutes an abuse of process and cannot be permitted. The appropriate remedy is revisional, not successive complaints. When the underlying dispute is civil in nature, criminal proceedings should not be used to exert pressure or as a shortcut for civil remedies. Allowing such prosecution would amount to harassment and misuse of process. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Courts have expressly deprecated the practice of forum shopping and bench hunting via successive applications on same facts; only recourse after initial denial is revision; civil disputes should not be criminalized. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Respondent No. 2 sold land to the petitioner via registered sale deed; later alleged impersonation and forgery. Initial application under Section 156(3) CrPC was dismissed on merits and not challenged. Without disclosure, a second application on identical facts was filed before another Magistrate, resulting in FIR. Civil suit seeking declaratory relief had also been dismissed, with appeal pending. Court found the matter essentially civil in nature. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that after dismissal of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC, the only legal remedy is a revision, not a second application before another Magistrate.
- Filing a successive application on the same facts without disclosure is an abuse of process and not maintainable.
- Emphasizes that criminal law cannot be invoked to resolve civil disputes or as a means of harassment.
- Lawyers may cite this judgment to challenge FIRs arising from repeated applications under Section 156(3) CrPC on identical facts, especially where the underlying dispute is civil.
- Reinforces the principle against forum shopping and bench hunting in criminal complaints.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court established that the initial application under Section 156(3) CrPC was dismissed on merits and not challenged further, thereby attaining finality.
- Relying on Hira Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Rajendra Chawla v. Chandra Prakash Chhabra, the Court held that a second application before a different Magistrate on the same facts, without disclosure of earlier dismissal, is impermissible and amounts to abuse of process.
- The proper legal course after such dismissal is a revision before a higher court, not repeat applications in the trial court.
- The Court also held that converting a civil dispute (title and validity of sale deed) into criminal proceedings is unacceptable and constitutes misuse of the criminal justice system.
- The ingredients of the offences alleged in the FIR were found to be absent upon a plain reading, and continued prosecution was deemed harassment and abuse.
- Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings against the petitioner.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Earlier application under Section 156(3) CrPC was dismissed on merits and not challenged, attaining finality.
- Respondent No. 2 filed a subsequent application on same facts before a different Presiding Officer without disclosing prior dismissal, amounting to forum shopping.
- Such practice is expressly deprecated in Hira Lal v. State of UP and Rajendra Chawla v. Chandra Prakash Chhabra.
- The FIR, based solely on the second application, is vitiated.
- The real dispute is civil; criminal proceedings are unwarranted and harassment.
- Even accepting the complaint at face value, the petitioner is a bona fide purchaser and not responsible for the alleged impersonation.
- Parallel civil and criminal proceedings on the same facts constitute abuse of process.
Respondent (State)
- FIR was registered per the Magistrate’s order on complaint of Respondent No. 2; investigation is pending.
- FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offences; investigation should not be stifled at inception.
- The petitioner will have full opportunity to defend himself during trial.
- Malice by complainant is not enough to quash FIR if criminal offences are disclosed.
- Reliance placed on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, holding that quashing FIR is an exceptional remedy.
Respondent No. 2
- Petitioner seeks to quash FIR but has not challenged the Magistrate’s order that led to its registration.
- FIR alleges impersonation and forgery in execution of sale deed by petitioner and others.
- Earlier 156(3) application was dismissed for lack of proof; second application included more material; such action is permitted in exceptional cases as per Pramatha Nath Talukdar v. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar.
- Civil suit seeking to nullify the sale deed was dismissed; appeal is pending.
- Prima facie, documents show commission of offences justifying investigation.
Factual Background
The petitioner purchased agricultural land from Respondent No. 2 and others via a registered sale deed dated 16.08.2017. Alleging impersonation and forged execution, Respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint, but her first application under Section 156(3) CrPC was dismissed on merits and not challenged. She then filed a second, undisclosed application on identical facts before another Magistrate, leading to registration of FIR No. 238/2022 under multiple IPC sections. Parallelly, Respondent No. 2’s civil suit challenging the sale deed was dismissed, with an appeal pending.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 156(3) CrPC: The Court examined whether a fresh application on identical facts is maintainable after a prior one was dismissed and not challenged. The judgment construes the provision restrictively, disallowing successive applications except by way of revision.
- IPC Sections 420, 467, 468, 294, 506-B, 323, 341, 201: The Court analyzed whether the facts, as alleged in the FIR, disclosed ingredients of the offences. It found that the grievance primarily concerns civil title and validity of the sale deed, not the elements required for the criminal provisions invoked.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are noted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were set by the Court in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✓ Precedent Followed – Existing law on bar against successive 156(3) CrPC applications is affirmed and clarified.