‘Criminal justice system no tool for vendetta’: Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court quashes ‘carbon copy’ FIR against Delhi man

“Splitting a single cause of action into multiple criminal cases by changing the nomenclature of the offences is legally impermissible and creates a dangerous precedent for judicial anarchy,” the May 14 order stated.

The court continued, “The criminal justice system cannot be allowed to be utilised as a tool for corporate vendetta or to settle personal scores through the systematic exhaustion of a citizen’s resources and liberty.”

‘Identical cases’

• The court finds that the allegations are not just similar or identical; they are virtually the same.
• Splitting a single cause of action into multiple criminal cases by changing the nomenclature of the
  offences is legally impermissible and creates a dangerous precedent for judicial anarchy, the court said.
• The court noted that facts of the same occurrence cannot be allowed to be broken into pieces to file multiple complaints.
• The sequence of events strongly suggests that the impugned FIR was not filed for the bona fide purpose of investigating a crime, but rather as a tool to harass the petitioner.

Seven hundred crore fraud

• The petitioner, a 54-year-old Delhi resident, claimed to be among the victims of a large real estate fraud between 2009 and 2014, alleging that builder Ashish Bhalla siphoned off seven hundred crore from AN Buildwell Pvt Ltd and used the money to create his own WTC group of companies. 
• The WTC Group recently started selling residential plots over agricultural land in Faridabad and Haryana without even obtaining a mandatory DTCP License and RERA Registration.
• Consequent to the aforementioned, the authorities began action against it on the complaint filed by the Petitioner. 
• Petitioner alleges that, exasperated by his whistleblowing, the respondent filed two parallel criminal proceedings at Srinagar and Budgam, and also in Delhi.
• The complaint alleged that after the company held an investment event at Sejour Hotel, Humhama, in August 2021, the petitioner started a Twitter trend titled “Anti India WTC – TALIBAN – ACT” on September 12, 2021, to defame the company. 

‘Company on forum shopping’

• Advocates Vikas Malik and Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, representing the petitioner, while seeking the quashment of the proceedings against him, argued that the respondent company had engaged in blatant “forum shopping” by approaching different forums to pursue the case.
• It was submitted that the petitioner was victimised through a “multi-pronged legal attack” for exposing a massive real estate scam. 
• The counsel highlighted that the respondent filed three separate cases at Srinagar, Budgam, and New Delhi based on the same set of allegations regarding a singular Twitter trend. 
• On behalf of their client, the counsel contended that the respondent hid the earlier Srinagar proceedings while approaching the Budgam Court, and then concealed both the proceedings while filing a third case in Delhi. 
• It was argued that this was an abuse of legal procedure and violated protection against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) and 21 of the Constitution. 
• The petitioner argued that the respondent hid the earlier Srinagar proceedings while approaching the Budgam Court, and also concealed both J&K cases when filing a third case in Delhi. 

‘Keeping courts in dark’

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said that the deliberate concealment of prior proceedings was an attempt to secure conflicting or multiple orders by keeping the courts in the dark, and was a gross abuse of judicial process.

The court also noted that the petitioner and the respondent company are residents of Delhi, yet the respondent chose to trigger other proceedings in Srinagar, Budgam and Delhi simultaneously.

‘Muti-jurisdictional litigation strategy’

• The “multi-jurisdictional” litigation strategy over a singular alleged act (Twitter Trend) was clearly aimed at intimidating the petitioner, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court said.
• The court noted that the initiation of three parallel proceedings for the same transaction was a textbook example of “forum shopping,” and was strictly prohibited by the principles of equity and criminal jurisprudence.
• It was well settled that there could not be multiple FIRs in respect of the same occurrence, the court said.
• It was stated that the petitioner had been stalked and harassed upon his visits to Srinagar, and the respondent had malicious intent behind those proceedings. 
• The criminal justice system cannot be allowed to be utilised as a tool for corporate vendetta or to settle personal scores through the systematic exhaustion of a citizen’s resources and liberty. 

‘Petition legally untenable’

Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh argued that the petition was not legally untenable and that one act could amount to multiple different offences.

It was submitted that the Srinagar complaint was regarding defamation, while the Budgam FIR concerned forgery and public mischief; therefore, the offences being separate with different legal ingredients, the principle of “double jeopardy” did not apply.

The state also alleged that the petitioner’s refusal to cooperate with the investigation and his use of “anti-national” narratives against the respondent company warranted an FIR.