Date of the Judgment: 16 October 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 946
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Pankaj Mithal, J. (Bench of 2 Judges)
Can a party manipulate the judicial process by filing a civil writ petition to consolidate multiple criminal First Information Reports (FIRs) to avoid a specific judge? The Supreme Court addressed this critical question, highlighting a gross abuse of the legal process. The Court found that the respondents had engaged in forum shopping by filing a civil writ petition to circumvent the roster system of the High Court, where a criminal bench had already declined interim relief. This case underscores the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to the established roster system.
Case Background
The appellant, Ambalal Parihar, filed six First Information Reports (FIRs) against the second to fourth respondents. Additionally, two other FIRs were registered against the same respondents by different first informants. The second to fourth respondents then filed two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions seeking to quash the FIRs filed by the other first informants.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| [Date not specified] | Six FIRs filed by the appellant against the second to fourth respondents. |
| [Date not specified] | Two FIRs filed against the second to fourth respondents by other first informants. |
| [Date not specified] | Second to fourth respondents filed two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions for quashing the FIRs filed by other first informants. |
| April 2023 | The petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) were heard by a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, who did not grant interim relief. |
| 5th May 2023 | The second and fourth respondents filed a Civil Writ Petition seeking a writ of mandamus to club all eight FIRs into one. |
| 8th May 2023 | The Rajasthan High Court passed an order in the Civil Writ Petition directing that no coercive action be taken against the second to fourth respondents regarding all eight FIRs. |
| 1st June 2023 | The second to fourth respondents persuaded the concerned Bench to grant relief of not taking coercive action against them in the petitions under Section 482 of CrPC for quashing. |
Course of Proceedings
The second to fourth respondents initially filed petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) before a Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, seeking to quash the FIRs filed by other first informants. However, the Single Judge did not grant any interim relief. Subsequently, the second to fourth respondents filed a Civil Writ Petition seeking to consolidate all eight FIRs, including those filed by the appellant. The High Court entertained the Civil Writ Petition and granted interim relief, directing that no coercive action be taken against the respondents. The Supreme Court noted that the same advocate represented the respondents in both civil and criminal cases. The Supreme Court highlighted that despite the relief granted in the Civil Writ Petition, the respondents again sought and obtained similar relief in the petitions under Section 482 of CrPC.
Legal Framework
The primary legal provision relevant to this case is Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which pertains to the inherent powers of the High Court. The Supreme Court also considered the importance of the roster system established by the Chief Justice of the High Court, which assigns specific types of cases to different judges.
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) states:
“Saving of inherent power of High Court.- Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.”
Arguments
The appellant argued that the second to fourth respondents engaged in forum shopping by filing a Civil Writ Petition to avoid the roster judge who had not granted interim relief in the criminal petitions. The appellant contended that the respondents’ actions were a gross abuse of the process of law and that the High Court should not have entertained the Civil Writ Petition for clubbing FIRs.
The second to fourth respondents argued that the Civil Writ Petition was a legitimate attempt to consolidate the multiple FIRs against them. They sought interim relief to prevent coercive action against them.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Forum Shopping | Filing a Civil Writ Petition to avoid the roster judge who did not grant interim relief in criminal petitions. | Appellant |
| Abuse of Process | The Civil Writ Petition was an attempt to circumvent the proper legal process. | Appellant |
| Legitimate Consolidation | The Civil Writ Petition was a valid attempt to consolidate multiple FIRs. | Respondents |
| Interim Relief | Sought to prevent coercive action against them in all FIRs. | Respondents |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue:
- Whether the action of filing a Civil Writ Petition for clubbing First Information Reports was a gross abuse of the process of law and a classic case of forum hunting?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the action of filing a Civil Writ Petition for clubbing First Information Reports was a gross abuse of the process of law and a classic case of forum hunting? | The Court held that the action of filing the Civil Writ Petition was indeed a gross abuse of the process of law and a classic case of forum hunting. The Court noted that the respondents filed the Civil Writ Petition to avoid the roster judge who had not granted them interim relief in the criminal petitions. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment. The Court primarily focused on the impropriety of the respondents’ actions and the importance of adhering to the roster system. The Court considered the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) to emphasize the inherent powers of the High Court, while also highlighting the need for judicial discipline and adherence to the roster system.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) | The Court referred to this section to highlight the inherent powers of the High Court, while emphasizing the need to prevent abuse of the process of law. |
Judgment
| Submission | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Filing a Civil Writ Petition to avoid the roster judge | The Court held this action to be a gross abuse of the process of law and a classic case of forum hunting. |
| Consolidation of FIRs | The Court dismissed the Civil Writ Petition, stating that it was not a legitimate method to consolidate FIRs. |
| Interim relief in Civil Writ Petition | The Court held that the relief granted in the Civil Writ Petition did not survive as the petition itself was dismissed. |
The Supreme Court held that the action of filing the Civil Writ Petition was a gross abuse of process and a classic case of forum hunting. The Court emphasized that the respondents attempted to circumvent the roster system of the High Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition to consolidate criminal FIRs, after failing to obtain interim relief from the criminal bench. The Court underscored that judges must adhere to the roster system notified by the Chief Justice.
The Court noted that the High Court should have converted the Civil Writ Petition into a Criminal Writ Petition, which would have been placed before the roster judge assigned to criminal matters. The Court stated that taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety.
The Supreme Court imposed costs of Rs. 50,000 on the second to fourth respondents, to be paid to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority. The Court also directed that the conduct of the respondents be brought to the notice of the concerned court hearing the petitions under Section 482 CrPC. Additionally, the Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) of the Rajasthan High Court to place a copy of the order in all eight petitions under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the respondents.
The Court stated: “We hold that action of filing SB Civil Writ Petition No.6277 of 2023 by the second to fourth respondents was nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and it was a classic case of forum hunting.”
The Court further stated: “If the Courts allow such sharp practices, the roster notified by the Chief Justice will have no meaning. The Judges have to follow discipline and ought not to take up any case unless it is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice.”
The Court also stated: “Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of gross impropriety.”
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the respondents’ attempt to manipulate the judicial process by circumventing the roster system. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to the roster system established by the Chief Justice. The Court’s decision was also driven by the need to prevent the abuse of the legal process and to ensure that parties do not engage in forum shopping to obtain favorable outcomes. The Court’s reasoning was based on the impropriety of filing a civil writ petition to consolidate criminal FIRs after failing to obtain relief from the criminal bench.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Impropriety of Forum Shopping | 40% |
| Need for Judicial Discipline and Adherence to Roster System | 30% |
| Prevention of Abuse of Legal Process | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Key Takeaways
- Filing a Civil Writ Petition to consolidate criminal FIRs is not a proper legal procedure.
- Parties cannot circumvent the roster system of the High Court by filing petitions in a different jurisdiction to avoid a specific judge.
- Judges must adhere to the roster system notified by the Chief Justice.
- Forum shopping is a gross abuse of the process of law and will be penalized with costs.
- The conduct of parties attempting to manipulate the legal process will be brought to the notice of the concerned court.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the second to fourth respondents to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority within one month and to produce the receipt within six weeks. The Court also directed that the conduct of the respondents be brought to the notice of the concerned court hearing the petitions under Section 482 CrPC. Additionally, the Registrar (Judicial) of the Rajasthan High Court was directed to place a copy of the order in all eight petitions under Section 482 of CrPC.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that filing a Civil Writ Petition to consolidate criminal FIRs to avoid a specific judge is a gross abuse of the process of law and a classic case of forum shopping. This judgment reinforces the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to the roster system. There is no change in the previous position of law, rather the court has reiterated the importance of following the established procedures.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Ambalal Parihar vs. State of Rajasthan is a stern rebuke against forum shopping and the manipulation of the judicial process. The Court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and adherence to the roster system and imposed costs on the respondents for their actions. This case serves as a reminder that parties cannot circumvent established legal procedures to obtain favorable outcomes.