Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Urn: Crlmp / 13019U / 2022Amit Goyal S/O … vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7218/2022
1. Anil Prakash Goyal S/o Shri Prem Prakash Goyal, aged
around 37 Years, R/o 1103, A, Aster 7, 10Th Floor, Super
Tech Emerald Court, Sector-93A, Noida, Gautam Buddh
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
2. Shivani Goyal W/o Shri Anil Prakash Goyal, aged around
69 Years, R/o 1103, Aster 7, 10Th Floor, Super Tech
Emerald Court, Sector-93A, Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar,
Uttar Pradesh.
3. Jayati Garg W/o Shri Vishal Garg, Aged around 40 Years,
R/o 5/22, Roop Nagar, Top Floor, Delhi.
4. Vishal Garg S/o Shri Surinder Kumar Garg, Aged About
44 Years, R/o 5/22, Roop Nagar, Top Floor, Delhi
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
2. Sunayna Tapadiya D/o Shri Sanjeev Tapadia, Aged About
36 Years, R/o 104, Sarojini Marg, C-55, Roop Kamal
Apartment, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7586/2022
Amit Goyal S/o Anil Prakash Goyal, aged about 37 Years, R/o
1103, Aster 7, 10th Floor, Super Tech Emerald Court, Sector-
93A, Noida , Gautam Buddh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh.
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.
2. Sunayna Tapadiya D/o Shri Sanjeev Tapadia, aged about
36 Years, R/o 104, Sarojini Marg, C-55, Roop Kamal
Apartment, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur.
—-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.A.K. Gupta, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr.Rinesh Gupta
Mr.Saurabh Pratap Singh &
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(2 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
Mr.Anil Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Jitendra Singh Rathore, Addl.GA.
Mr.V.R.S. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Ms.Savita Nathawat &
Mr.Sanjay Rahar
JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 18/05/2026
2. Date on which the order was reserved 18/05/2026
Whether the full order or only the operative
3. Full judgment
part is pronounced
4. Date of pronouncement 22/05/2026
Reportable
1. The Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) Diary No.7155/2026 has directed vide order dated
27.02.2026 to decide two criminal misc. petitions bearing
No.7218/2022 and 7586/2022 pending before this Court, assailing
the validity of the F.I.R. No.90/2021, registered at the Police
Station Mahila Thana (South) Jaipur for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 406 & 323 IPC and the consequent
proceedings arising out of the Criminal Case No.22890/2022
pending before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate No.12, Jaipur
Metropolitan-I, wherein charge-sheet has been submitted against
the petitioners for the above stated offences.
2. Since common prayer has been made in both these petitions,
hence, with the consent of counsel for the parties, their arguments
have been heard together and these petitions are being decided
by this common order.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(3 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
3. A preliminary objection has been taken by counsel appearing
on behalf of the complainant-respondent Mr.V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv.
that during pendency of these petitions, charges have been
framed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections
498-A & 406 IPC by the learned Trial Judge vide order dated
23.04.2025 and aggrieved by the aforesaid order of framing of
charges, the petitioners have already filed two different revision
petitions bearing No.29/2025 and 295/2025 before the Court of
Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, Jaipur and the same have
been transferred to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2,
Jaipur Metropolitan-I and are lying pending for adjudication on
their merits. He submits that under these circumstances, the
instant petitions are not maintainable and are liable to be rejected
on this count alone that after framing of charge, the trial has
commenced and the revision petition assailing the order of
framing of charge is lying pending before the Revisional Court. He
submits that with regard to the same cause, i.e., for quashing of
consequential proceedings arising out of the F.I.R. No.90/2021,
two separate petitions before two different Courts, i.e., before this
Court & before the Revisional Court are not maintainable. Hence,
the instant petitions are liable to be rejected on this technical
count alone.
4. Learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners
submitted that when the instant petitions were submitted before
this Court, an interim order was passed for not taking any
coercive action against the petitioners. Hence, under these
circumstances, the learned Trial Judge should not have passed the
order of framing charges against the petitioners. Since charges
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(4 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
have been framed during pendency of the instant petitions and on
account of non-hearing of the instant petitions, the order of
framing of charge has been assailed by way of filing two separate
revision petitions before the Revisional Court, i.e., Court of
Sessions. Counsels submit that the powers of this Court under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. are inherent and the same can be exercised by
this Court to prevent the abuse of process of law at any stage and
there is no limit to exercise such power and the same can be
exercised to secure the ends of justice. They conjointly further
submit that there is no such bar under the provisions contained
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that filing of revision
petition against the order of framing of charge would in any
manner affect the instant petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
5. In support of their contentions, they have placed reliance
upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the
cases are as follows:-
(I) G Sagar Suri Vs. State of UP reported in (2000) 2 SCC
636.
(II) Chaman Lal Sankhla Vs. State of Haryana reported in
2008 SCC OnLine P&H 207.
(III) Prabhu Chawla Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in
(2016) 16 SCC 30.
They submit that in light of the submissions made
hereinabove, the instant petitions are maintainable even under the
changed circumstances, where charges have been framed.
Therefore, the instant petitions are required to be heard and
decided on merits and the same should not be dismissed on the
ground of non-maintainability. They further submit that the scope
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(5 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
of revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is confined to see the
correctness of the order passed by the Trial Court, but the scope
of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is wider than the scope of Section 397
Cr.P.C. Hence, a prayer has been made to hear and decide the
instant petitions on their merits. They submit that there is merit
and substance in these petitions as the lodging of the impugned
F.I.R. amounts to gross abuse of process of law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
complainant-respondent Mr.V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. submits that while
filing Special Leave Petition Crl. Diary No.7155/2026, this fact was
not brought into the notice of the Hon’ble Apex Court by the
petitioners that charges were already framed against them by the
Trial Court vide order dated 23.04.2025. He further submits that
without bringing this material fact into the notice of the Hon’ble
Apex Court, the petitioners got the order dated 27.02.2026, on
the pretext that in case, these petitions are not disposed of or
decided, the trial would commence and the purpose of both filing
the instant petitions would be frustrated and the same would
become infructuous and would further cause prejudice to the
petitioners. Counsel submits that non-disclosure of the order of
framing of charge amounts to suppression on the part of the
petitioners, before the Hon’ble Apex Court.
7. Counsel further submits that after framing of charge vide
order dated 23.04.2025, the trial has already commenced and the
instant petitions have already become infructuous, in light of the
judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Hardeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in 2014 (3) SCC
92.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(6 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
8. Counsel further submits that even otherwise also, the misc.
petitions, submitted by the petitioners Anil Prakash Goyal, Shivani
Goyal, Jayati Garg and Vishal Garg is not maintainable as on
earlier occasion also, they approached this Court by way of filing
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.380/2022 wherein this Court was
not inclined to entertain the petition on its merits and direction
was issued by this Court to the Investigating Officer for conducting
fair, impartial and expeditious investigation. He submits that
neither any liberty was granted to the petitioners nor the
petitioners sought any liberty to file any successive petition to
challenge the validity of the impugned F.I.R..
9. He further submits that prior to filing these petitions, charge-
sheet was already submitted against the petitioners and
cognizance was also taken against them and thereafter, the
petitioners approached this Court and this Court vide order dated
10.02.2023, passed an interim order directing that no coercive
action shall be taken against the petitioners. Counsel submits that
the word ‘no coercive action’ is vague, no specific direction was
issued by this Court not to proceed against the petitioners. Hence,
under these circumstances, there is no order in favour of the
petitioners restraining the Trial Court not to pass the order of
framing of charge against the petitioners.
10. Counsel submits that once charges have been framed
against the petitioners vide order dated 23.04.2025 and that order
has already been assailed by the petitioners by way of filing two
separate revision petitions before the Court of Sessions and the
same are lying pending for adjudication on merits, the instant
misc. petitions lying before this Court are not maintainable.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(7 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
Counsel submits that the powers contained under Section 482
Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised by this Court, if there is a specific
provision under the Cr.P.C. available to the petitioners to redress
their grievance. Once the petitioners have already approached the
Revisional Court, by way of filing two separate revision petitions
against the order of framing of charge for redressal of their
grievances, then in the light of the same, the instant petitions are
not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed on this count
alone.
11. In support of their contentions, counsel has placed reliance
upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case
of Madhu Limaye Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in
(1977) 4 SCC 551.
12. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made
hereinabove, the instant petitions are liable to be rejected on this
technical count.
13. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and
perused the material available on record.
14. The undisputed fact is that after registration of F.I.R. against
the petitioners, charge-sheet has been submitted and cognizance
has also been taken against them. At this stage, the petitioners
approached this Court by way of filing these two petitions.
This fact is also not in dispute that during pendency of the
instant petitions, charges have been framed against the
petitioners and they have submitted two separate criminal revision
petitions before the Revisional Court, i.e., the Sessions Court, and
the same are lying pending for adjudication.
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(8 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
15. Now, the question which remains for consideration of this
Court is ‘Whether the petitioners can be permitted to avail two
parallel remedies for the same relief, i.e., quashing of the
proceedings or their discharge?’
16. There are certain stages of the proceedings in a criminal case
whenever F.I.R. is registered for commission of any cognizanble
offence. The F.I.R. is registered under Section 154 Cr.P.C. After
investigation, if the Police finds involvement of the accused in
commission of the alleged offence, charge-sheet is submitted
against him under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the competent Court
of law. The Magistrate can take cognizance against such accused,
if he finds prima facie case against him and proceed accordingly.
Thereafter, the trial reaches to the stage of framing of
charge/discharge. In case the Court comes to the conclusion that
charges are required to be framed, then necessary orders are
required to be passed in this regard.
The accused can challenge the validity of the F.I.R., charge-
sheet, order of taking cognizance and order of framing of the
charges. He can file revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C.
before the Revisional Court against the order of taking cognizance
and order of framing of charges. Prior to that stage, he can
challenge the F.I.R., charge-sheet and cognizance order before
this Court, by way of filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But
in any case, he cannot avail two parallel remedies for redressal of
his grievance, i.e., one before the Revisional Court and another
before this Court.
17. Herein, the instant case for quashing the F.I.R., challenging
the charge-sheet and the order of cognizance, the petitioners have
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(9 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
filed the instant petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. However,
during pendency of these petitions, charges have been framed
against them and they have assailed the said order before the
Revisional Court by way of filing criminal revision petition under
Section 397 Cr.P.C.
18. It is settled proposition of law that an aggrieved party cannot
be allowed to avail two parallel remedies for redressal of a
common grievance. By availing two parallel remedies, the
petitioners intend to sail in two boats and the same cannot be
permitted. One cannot pursue two parallel remedies for the same
cause at the same time, as this will be deemed to be an abuse of
the process of law and the Court. Though multiple remedies might
technically exist and selecting one remedy often bars the initiation
of another remedy simultaneously. Such practice cannot be
appreciated, rather it is liable 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.
19. This Court is of the considered view that as a general
principle where two remedies are available under law, one of them
should not be taken as operating in derogation of the other. If a
party has elected to pursue a particular remedy, he is bound by it
and cannot be allowed to pursue another remedy simultaneously.
20. Instant matter is partly based on the Latin maxim which
forms the foundational principle of Roman Jurisprudence, i.e.
“Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa” which translates
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(10 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
to “no man should be vexed twice for the same cause”, meaning
thereby that one cannot be allowed to avail two parallel remedies
for the same matter at the same time.
21. Even otherwise also, once the Court applies its mind under
Section 240 Cr.P.C. and frames charges against the accused, the
earlier order of cognizance ceases to have its independent
existence. Therefore, no separate grievance qua cognizance can
be entertained post framing of charge.
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. Since the petitioners have already availed that remedy
by way of filing revision petition under Section 397 Cr.P.C. befor
the Revisional Court, i.e., Sessions Court, hence, under these
changed circumstances, these petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
against the order of cognizance are not maintainable. Even the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Madhu Limaye (supra) has
held that the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not to be
restored if there is a specific provision in the Code for redressal of
the grievance of the aggrieved party.
22. 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
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
(11 of 11) [CRLMP-7218/2022]
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. If such practice is allowed to
sustain, there would be flood of petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The parties would file petitions under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before
the Revisional Court and petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before
this Court against the same grievance to get relief in the same
matter. One has to stick to one remedy only, otherwise, it would
amount to abuse of the process of law.
23. In view of the reasons stated above, the instant petitions
stand disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue the
remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. before the Revisional Court for
redressal of their grievances.
The Revisional Court is directed to hear and decide the
pending revision petitions against the order of framing of charges,
expeditiously as early as possible on its merits, after providing due
opportunity of hearing to all the sides.
24. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the instant
petitions stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending
application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J
Aayush Sharma /23-24
(Uploaded on 22/05/2026 at 11:57:09 AM)
(Downloaded on 23/05/2026 at 08:52:05 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
