SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu, Kashmir, and Ladakh has quashed a First Information Report (FIR) registered by Budgam Police against a Delhi-based businessman, deeming the criminal proceedings a misuse of the judicial process through “forum shopping” and parallel litigation.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that the court found the parallel cases filed by a World Trade Centre-linked company against the businessman, Vishvendra Singh, constituted an abuse of legal procedures. Justice M.A. Chowdhary, delivering the judgment, highlighted that the respondent company had initiated multiple proceedings in different courts based on identical allegations while failing to disclose the existence of prior cases to subsequent forums.
The petition was filed by Vishvendra Singh, a resident of Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The case originated from allegations that Singh had launched a social media campaign titled “Anti India WTC – TALIBAN – ACT” following an investment event organised by WTC Faridabad Infrastructure near Srinagar in August 2021. Acting on a complaint filed under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam, had directed the registration of FIR No. 327/2021 under Sections 469 (forgery for purpose of harming reputation) and 505(II) (statements conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Singh argued before the High Court that he was being targeted after allegedly exposing what he described as large-scale real estate fraud involving companies associated with the WTC Group. He contended that multiple criminal proceedings had been initiated against him in Srinagar, Budgam, and New Delhi based on the same set of allegations, intended to harass and silence him.
The Court observed that the respondent company had pursued parallel proceedings while suppressing material facts from various courts. It noted that after obtaining a summoning order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, on October 7, 2021, the respondent approached the Budgam court within days to initiate another criminal case based on the same allegations. The court stated that this deliberate concealment of prior proceedings indicated an attempt to obtain conflicting or cumulative judicial orders by misleading different courts, describing such conduct as a “fraud on the court and a gross abuse of the judicial process.”
Justice Chowdhary also pointed out that both the petitioner and officials of the respondent company were based in New Delhi, yet criminal proceedings were simultaneously initiated in Srinagar, Budgam, and Saket courts. The court remarked that this “multi-jurisdictional” litigation strategy concerning a singular alleged act was clearly designed to intimidate the petitioner, using the law not as a shield for justice but as a sword for harassment.
During the court proceedings, the police informed the High Court that screenshots and URLs of the alleged tweets had been collected and verified through the Cyber Cell in Srinagar. However, identification of the actual users from Twitter Inc. was still pending. The police also submitted that a complaint previously filed by Singh in Delhi against the respondent company had been closed after no cognizable offence was found.
The respondent company contended that the Srinagar complaint and the Budgam FIR pertained to different offences with distinct legal elements. They argued that one case related to defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, while the Budgam FIR invoked Sections 469 and 505 IPC concerning forgery and public mischief.
The High Court, however, rejected this argument, concluding that the fundamental basis of both proceedings remained identical. The Court stated that the respondent could not fragment a single cause of action into separate criminal cases simply by invoking different penal provisions. The judgment emphasized that the facts of the same occurrence should not be divided to file multiple complaints, and all offences arising from a single event should be investigated and tried together.
Characterizing the litigation as a “textbook example of forum shopping,” the High Court further observed that the complaints filed in Srinagar and Budgam were “carbon copies of each other” and stemmed entirely from the same alleged social media activity. Relying on Supreme Court rulings in cases like T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, the High Court reiterated the principle that there cannot be multiple FIRs or parallel criminal proceedings relating to the same transaction.
Concluding that the continuation of the Budgam FIR would constitute a “travesty of justice,” the Court allowed the petition, quashing the order passed by the Budgam Magistrate, FIR No. 327/2021, and all subsequent proceedings emanating from it.
❤️ Support Independent Journalism
Your contribution keeps our reporting free, fearless, and accessible to everyone.
Or make a one-time donation
Secure via Razorpay • 12 monthly payments • Cancel anytime before next cycle
(We don't allow anyone to copy content. For Copyright or Use of Content related questions, visit here.)
The Chenab Times News Desk
