AMBALAL PARIHARversusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

                  [2023] 15 S.C.R. 213 : 2023 INSC 946



                             CASE DETAILS
                         AMBALAL PARIHAR
                                      v.
                   STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 3233 of 2023)
                           OCTOBER 16, 2023
           [ABHAY S.OKA AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
                              HEADNOTES
     Issue for consideration: Impugned order passed in Civil Writ Petition,
filed by the second to fourth respondents for clubbing of eight FIRs filed
against them, directing that no coercive action be taken against the aforesaid
respondents in connection with the said FIRs, if justified.
      Administration of Justice – Abuse of process of law – Forum
hunting – Six FIRs were registered against the second to fourth
respondents, at the instance of the appellant – Two other FIRs were
also registered against them by some other first informants, respondents
sought quashing thereof, however, no interim relief was granted – Then
a Writ Petition was filed on the civil side by the aforesaid respondents
for clubbing the eight FIRs – Single Judge directed that no coercive
action be taken against the respondents in connection with all eight
FIRs – Appellant alleged forum hunting by respondents stating that the
Civil Writ Petition for consolidation of eight FIRs was filed to avoid the
roster Judge who had not granted interim relief:
       Held: Action of filing Civil Writ Petition by the respondents was
nothing but a gross abuse of process of law and it was a classic case of
forum hunting – It is wondered how a Civil Writ Petition for clubbing FIRs
could be entertained – In the roster notified by the Chief Justice, there is a
separate roster for Criminal Writ Petitions – 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 – A Judge can take up a case
provided either the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per
the notified roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief
                                      213
214           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 15 S.C.R.


Justice – Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an
act of gross impropriety – Though a Civil Writ Petition was filed, the Judge
ought to have converted it into a Criminal Writ Petition which could have
been placed only before the roster Judge taking up Criminal Writ Petitions
– Civil Writ Petition dismissed – Therefore, the impugned order does not
survive – Costs of Rs.50,000/- imposed on the respondents – The conduct
of the respondents be brought to the notice of the concerned Court which
is hearing petitions u/s.482, CrPC filed by them for quashing FIRs – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482. [Paras 7, 8 and 10]
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
3233 of 2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2023 of the High Court of
Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in SBCWP No. 6277 of 2023.
      Appearances:
      Pranab Prakash, Yash Chaturvedi, Advs. for the Appellant.
    Ashutosh Shekhar Paarcha, Ms. Neha Kapoor, Milind Kumar, Sanyat
Lodha, Ms. Sanjana Saddy, Ms. Surbhi Arora, Advs. for the Respondents.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                               JUDGMENT

      ABHAY S.OKA, J.
        Leave granted.
      2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
      3. This is a shocking case of gross abuse of process of law by the second
to fourth respondents. At the instance of the appellant, six First Information
Reports were registered against the second to fourth respondents. There were
two other First Information Reports registered against the same respondents
by some other first informants. Two Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions were
filed by the second to fourth respondents for quashing the First Information
Reports filed at the instance of the other first informants.
  AMBALAL PARIHAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.                             215
               [ABHAY S.OKA, J.]

     4. Our attention is invited to the orders passed on the two petitions
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short
“CrPC”) filed by the second to fourth respondents. The petitions came up
before a learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court in April, 2023
in which no interim relief was granted.
      5. Thereafter, the second to fourth respondents took a very extra
ordinary step. On 5th May, 2023 a Writ Petition was filed on the civil side by
the second and fourth respondents in which a prayer was made for issuing
a writ of mandamus for clubbing the eight First Information Reports and
consolidating them into one. The impugned order has been passed in the said
Civil Writ Petition on 8th May, 2023. The learned Single Judge of the High
Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the second to
fourth respondents in connection with all eight First Information Reports.
       6. The appellant has made a very serious allegation by relying upon
the then prevailing roster notified by the Chief Justice of the Rajasthan
High Court. The allegation is that as the learned Single Judge taking up
assignment of the criminal matters dealing with Section 482 CrPC did not
grant interim relief to the second to fourth respondents in two cases, this
method of filing a Civil Writ Petition was invented in which a prayer was
made for consolidation of eight First Information Reports. The allegation
is that this was done to avoid the roster Judge who had not granted interim
relief. Not only that this course was adopted, the second to fourth respondents
in the Civil Writ Petition prayed for interim relief directing that no coercive
action shall be taken against the second to fourth respondents in relation to
all eight First Information Reports. The complainants were not impleaded
in the Civil Writ Petitions. Interestingly, both in civil and criminal cases,
the same advocate represented the second to fourth respondents.
     7. This is a classic case of forum hunting by the second to fourth
respondents. It transpires that notwithstanding the aforesaid relief granted on
8th May, 2023 in the Civil Writ Petition, in the petitions under Section 482
of CrPC for quashing, on 1st June, 2023 the second to fourth respondents
persuaded the concerned Bench to grant relief of not taking coercive action
against them.
    8. Thus, this is a case of gross abuse of process of law. We wonder
how a Civil Writ Petition for clubbing First Information Reports could be
216           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 15 S.C.R.


entertained. In the roster notified by the Chief Justice, there is a separate
roster for Criminal Writ Petitions. 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. A Judge can take up a case provided either
the cases of that category have been assigned to him as per the notified
roster or the particular case is specifically assigned by the Chief Justice.
Taking up a case not specifically assigned by the Chief Justice is an act of
gross impropriety. Though a Civil Writ Petition was filed, the learned Judge
ought to have converted into a Criminal Writ Petition which could have
been placed only before the roster Judge taking up Criminal Writ Petitions.
      9. We are sure that this conduct of the second to fourth respondents
will be considered by the concerned Court taking up petitions under Section
482 CrPC for quashing the First Information Reports.
      10. This is a fit case where the second to fourth respondents must be
saddled with costs. We quantify the costs amount at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees
fifty thousand).
      11. Hence, we allow the appeal by passing the following order:
      (a)   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;
      (b)   Accordingly, we dismiss SB Civil Writ Petition No.6277 of 2023.
            Therefore, the impugned order does not survive;
      (c)   We direct the second to fourth respondents to pay costs quantified
            at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to the Rajasthan State
            Legal Services Authority within a period of one month from today
            and to produce the receipt before this Court within a period of
            six weeks from today;
      (d)   As narrated earlier, the conduct of the second to fourth
            respondents shall be brought to the notice of the concerned Court
            which is hearing petitions under Section 482 CrPC filed by the
            second to fourth respondents; and
  AMBALAL PARIHAR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.                             217
               [ABHAY S.OKA, J.]

      (e)   We direct the Registrar (Judicial) of the Rajasthan High Court to
            place a copy of this order in all eight petitions under Section 482
            of CrPC filed by the second to fourth respondents for quashing
            First Information Reports.
      12. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.


Headnotes prepared by:                                           Appeal allowed.
Divya Pandey