Mukesh Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
1
IN IN IN IN
N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ
JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT JAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGA CHANDIGA CHANDIGA CHANDIGA
ARH ARH ARH ARH



CRM CRM CRM-M-7841 CRM 7841 7841-2025 7841 2025 2025 2025

Mukesh K
Kumar
....Petitioner
V/s
Haryana and others
State of H
....Respondents
Date of Date of de Date of Date of de de de
ecision: ecision: 03.09.2026 ecision: ecision: 03.09.2026 03.09.2026 03.09.2026
Date of U Date of U Date of U Date of U
Uploading : 07.09.2026 Uploading : 07.09.2026 Uploading : 07.09.2026 Uploading : 07.09.2026
CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM:
: : : : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SU
UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL UMEET GOEL
Present:





Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sen
Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, A
Mr. Nitin Sachdeva, Advocat
Mr. Shubham Goyal, Advoca
Ms. Sukriti Jain, Advocate an
Mr. R.S. Duggal, Advocate f
nior Advocate with
Advocate
te
ate
nd
for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG Ha
aryana for the respondent-State.
*
T GOEL T GOEL T GOEL T GOEL , J. , J. , J. , J.
SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET SUMEET
The petition in hand has be
1.
een filed under Section 528 of
the
Bharatiya
a Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
3 (hereinafter referred to as BNS
SS)
(erstwhile
e Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973), with
the
following
g substantive prayer:
“ It is, therefore, most resp
pectfully prayed that preset petition m
may
kindly be allowed and the FIR
IRs i.e. FIR no. 43 Dated 28.11.20
2022
(Annexure P-23), lodged by An
nti Corruption Burea, Gurugram (AC
CB)
Haryana under Section 409, 418,
420, 467, 468, 120-B of IPC, and 13(
3(2),
13(1)(c) & 13(1)(d) of Preventi
ion of Corruption Act, Police Statio
on :
ACB, Sector 47, Gurugram, Har
aryana and FIR no.11 Dated 05.03.20
2023
(Annexure P-24) lodged by Ant
ti Corruption Bureau, Gurugram (AC
CB)
Haryana under Section 409, 418
8, 420, 467, 468, 120-B IPC and 13(
3(2),
13(1)(c) & 7(c) of Prevention o
of Corruption Act, Police Station :AC
ACB,
Sector 47, Gurugram, Haryana an
nd all the subsequent proceedings aris
sing
out of the same, being perverse, i
illegal, mala fide and the continuation
n of
proceedings therein amounting t
to an abuse of process of law, in
the
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
interest of justice.

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
2
And
Further for quashing/setti
ting aside letter/order dated 10.11.20
2022
(Annexure P-22) whereby sanct
ction/permission under Section 17-A
A of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 20
019 has been granted by the Departm
ment
after a lapse of 3 years and that
t too not by the competent authority
i.e.
appointing authority, in the interes
est of justice.
And
Further for directing the r
respondent no. 1, 5 & 6 for taking act
tion
against Sh. R.S. Verma, Sh. Shiv
iv Pansad, the then Administrator, H
Head
Quarter (now retired) and others
officials/officers, on the basis of inqu
uiry
report dated 03.10.2022 (Annexur
ure P-21), in the interest of justice.
And
Further for directing the
respondent no. 1 & 2 to conduct pro
robe
regarding the role of Sh. Subhash
h Yadav, the then I.G. SVB (now retire
red),
the then Administrator, Gurugram
m and Sh. Bharat Bhushan Gogia, Est
state
Officer, Gurugram and other offi
ficers/officials of Haryana Shehari Vi
Vikas
Pradhikaran and SVB at Gurugra
am & Panchkula involved in the mat
tter,
in view of the facts and circumst
tances of the present case, in the inter
erest
of justice.
And
Further for directing the r
respondent no. 1 to get the inquiry of
f the
present matter conducted from a
any senior police officer not below
the
rank of ADGP outside the State
te of Haryana or any other independ
dent
agency, as various HCS/IAS/IPS
S officers are involved in the present c
case
i.e. Sh. Subhash Yadav, the then I
I.G. SVB (now retired)/respondent no
o. 7,
Sh. R.S. Verma/respondent no. 8
8, Sh. Shiv Parsad/respondent no. 9,
the
then Administrator, Head Quarte
er (now retired), the then Administra
ator,
Gurugramand Sh. Bharat Bhusha
an Gogia, the then Estate Officer-I &
& II,
Gurugram/respondent no. 10 an
nd other officers/officials of HSVP a
and
SVB at Gurugram & Panchkula, i
in the interest of justice.
And
For staying all the procee
edings initiated from the impugned F
FIRs
i.e.FIR No. 43 Dated 28.11.2022
2 (Annexure P-23) and FIR No. 11 Da
ated
05.03.2023 (Annexure P-24), till
the decision of the present petition, a
as in
CWP No. 29230 of 2022 filed by
y Bharat Bhushan Taneja, vide orderda
ated
17.01.2023 (Annexure P-27A) co
oercive steps have been stayed, wher
reas
the petitioner has only compl
lied with the orders/directions Da
ated
15.06.2018 (Annexure P-4) forw
warded/signed by Bharat Bhushan Tan
neja
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
and email dated 27.07.2018 (A
(Annexure P-8) sent by Shiv Pras
sad,

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
3
Administrator (Headquarter), HSV
SVP from his official email, in the inter
erest
of justice.
And/or
For the issuance of any oth
ther order or direction which this Hon
n'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in
n the facts and circumstances of the ca
ase;
and for grant of such relief to wh
hich the petitioner may be found entit
itled
in the facts and circumstances of t
the case.
It is further prayed that
the petitioner may kindly be exemp
pted
from filing the certified/true typed
d copies of Annexure P-1 to P-50 and
d the
same may kindly be allowed to
o be placed on record, in the interest
st of
justice.”

2.
op of the lis in hand is adumbra
The relevant factual backdro
ted
thus:
(i)
The petitioner, at the releva
ant time, was serving as an Est
tate
Officer-I,
HSVP, Gurugram. The genesis
of the matter relates to three SC
CO
sites, i.e.
SCO Nos. 8 and 30, Sector 2
23-A, Gurugram and SCO No.
13,
Sector 23
3-A, Gurugram. The said proper
rties had originally been auction
ned
in the ye
ear 1997 and allotment letters
were issued on 18.12.1997. T
The
allotments
s were subsequently cancelle
ed on 10.04.1998. The appea
als,
revisions
and review proceedings aris
sing therefrom preferred by
the
concerned
d allottees were also dismissed
in the years 1999, 2000 and 20
001
respective
ely.
(ii)
In the year 2018, application
n(s) were moved by the concern
ned
firm(s) se
eeking restoration of the aforesa
aid SCOs. The petitioner, who w
was
then hold
ding the charge of Estate Office
er-I, Gurugram, received directio
ons
from the
higher authorities to verify th
he factual position regarding no
on-
delivery o
of the original allotment letters
and to take necessary action.
On
verificatio
on of the official record, the pet
titioner had found that the origi
nal
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
allotment
letters issued in the year 1997
had remained undelivered and h
had

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

been retu
7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
4
urned by the postal authorities
s. Pursuant thereto, the petition
ner
issued cop
pies/provisional conditional allot
tment letter(s), specifically maki
ing
the same
subject to final approval of
the Chief Administrator, HSV
VP,
Panchkula
a. Furthermore, the petitioner h
had also submitted the complian
nce
reports in
this regard to the higher authori
ities.
(iii)
The aforesaid conditiona
al allotments, however, w
ere
subsequen
ntly cancelled/withdrawn. In r
espect of SCO Nos.8 and 30,
the
conditiona
al allotment was cancelled on
30.08.2018 whereas in respect
of
SCO No
o.13, the petitioner withdrew
w the conditional allotment
on
04.09.201
18. The petitioner had claimed
that he had acted pursuant to
the
directions
s received from his superior
officers and that the propos
sed
allotments
s were never given finality by th
he competent authority.
(iv)
Thereafter, Vigilance Inqui
iry was conducted and the fi
nal
inquiry re
eport dated 03.10.2022, as relied
d upon by the petitioner, record
ded
findings i
in his favour wherein it has bee
en stated that no financial loss h
had
occurred
to the Government on accoun
nt of issuance of the conditio
nal
allotments
s. The petitioner has also reli
ed upon the order/communicati
ion
dated 10.
11.2022 regarding approval und
der Section 17-A of the Preventi
ion
of Corrup
ption Act.
(v)
Notwithstanding the aforesa
aid circumstances, the FIR No
.43
dated 28.
11.2022 had been registered in
respect of SCO Nos.8 and 30 a
and
FIR No.1
1 dated 05.03.2023 had been re
egistered in respect of SCO No.
13.
The prose
ecution case, in substance, is tha
at the petitioner, while functioni
ing
as Estate
Officer-I, Gurugram, in conniv
vance with other officials and
the
concerned
d private parties, proceeded to
restore/re-allot the SCOs after
r a
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

considera
7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
5
able lapse of time at the old ra
ates and thereby allegedly caus
sed
undue ben
nefit to the private parties and c
consequential wrongful loss to
the
HSVP. T
The allegations further disclos
ed that the petitioner had ac
ted
without ob
btaining the requisite approval fr
from the competent authority & h
had
played an
n active role in the re-allotment
of the properties in question. T
The
inquiry re
eport dated 27.12.2019 sent by
Director General, State Vigilan
nce
Bureau as
s also letter dated 10.11.2022 w
whereby permission under Secti
ion
17-A of P
Prevention of Corruption Act w
was granted by the Department h
had
also been
n challenged by the petitioner be
efore this Court vide CWP-2741
12-
2022.
(vi)
In relation to the aforesaid
d FIRs, the petitioner had earl
lier
approache
ed this Court seeking the co
oncession of anticipatory bail
l(s)
whereby
interim protection had been
afforded to him on 07.06.20
23.
Pursuant
thereto, the petitioner had jo
oined the investigation and a
also
furnished
the requisite affidavit regardin
ng his assets. However, both
the
anticipato
ory-bail petition(s) were ultimat
tely dismissed by this Court v
ide
common
order dated 20.03.2024.The p
petitioner approached the Hon’
ble
Supreme
Court vide SLP(Crl.) No.4962-
-4963/2024, against the above-s
aid
dismissal
of his plea (for anticipatory bai
il) by this Court. Vide order da
ted
16.04.202
24, the said SLP was declined by
y the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
(vii)
Thereafter, the petitioner had
d also earlier approached this Co
ourt
by way o
of CRM-M-2757-2023 (Annexu
ure P-26) seeking quashing of F
FIR
No.43 da
ated 28.11.2022. However, the
said petition was withdrawn
on
18.01.202
23 with liberty to the petitioner t
to apprise the investigating agen
ncy
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

of the issu
7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
6
ues raised therein and to take al
l such points before the trial Co
ourt
at the app
propriate stage, in case a challan w
was presented.

However, by way of petition
n in hand, the petitioner has chos
sen
to seek
quashing of the impugned FI
IRs (as also proceedings arisi
ing
therefrom
m) itself.
3.
At the very outset, this Cou
urt called upon the learned coun
nsel
appearing
g for the rival parties to add
ress the preliminary question
of
ability of the petition in han
nd, particularly in view of
maintaina
the
petitioner
r’s earlier plea(s) for Anticipato
ry bail having been dismissed (
(on
merits) by
y this Court, which order has atta
ained finality upon dismissal of
the
plea for
anticipatory bail subsequently
by the Hon’ble Supreme Cou
urt.
ly, in the interregnum, the petitio
Admittedl
oner has not surrendered much l
ess
availed th
he remedy of regular bail from t
the competent court. The pertin
ent
prelimina
ary question, therefore, is whethe
er the petitioner, without submitti
ing
tain the petition in hand espousi
himself to
o the process of law, can maint
ing
the plea fo
for quashing of the FIR(s) in que
stion (on merits) after failing in
his
earlier att
empt(s) to secure anticipatory ba
ail.
3.1.
Learned counsel appearing f
for the petitioner; led by Sh. S
.K.
Garg Na
arwana, Senior Advocate; w
while addressing the issue
of
maintaina
ability, has submitted that the m
mere dismissal of an earlier petiti
ion
nticipatory bail, cannot, ipso fac
cto, operates as a bar to the pres
seeking an
ent
petition s
eeking quashing of FIR. It is co
ontended that the two proceedin
ngs
operate in
n distinct and independent field
ds and are governed by materia
ally
different
considerations. It is further ite
erated that dismissal of prayer
for
anticipato
ory bail, even on merits, does no
ot amount to an adjudication up
pon
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

the legalit
7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
7
ty or sustainability of the FIR, n
nor does it constitute a finding t
hat
the prosec
cution must necessarily proceed.


Learned Senior counsel has
further urged that there is no le
gal
principle
of merger or estoppel whe
ereby an unsuccessful plea
for
anticipato
ory bail forecloses an otherwise
maintainable challenge to the F
FIR
by way o
of a quashing petition. It is fu
urther submitted that the cause
of
action, re
lief sought and jurisdiction invo
oked in the two proceedings bei
ing
distinct, t
the dismissal of one cannot, by
y necessary implication, entail
the
dismissal
of other.

Lastly, the learned senior
r counsel has argued that
the
jurisdictio
on to quash an FIR is neither a
substitute for, nor an extension
of,
the jurisdi
iction exercised while considerin
ng a plea for anticipatory bail. T
The
earlier or
rder(s) declining anticipatory b
bail may be relevant for cour
rt’s
ation, but it ipso facto, ca
considera
annot foreclose an independ
dent
examinati
ion of the FIR on the paramete
ers applicable to a petition seeki
ing
of FIR.
quashing

On the strength of afore-sai
id submissions, the learned sen
nior
as canvassed that the petition in
n hand is maintainable and hence
counsel h
he
may be al
llowed to plead the case on merit
ts thereof.
In oppugnation, learned Sta
4.
ate counsel has assailed the ve
ery
ability of the petition in hand. I
maintaina
It is submitted that the petition
ner,
having ap
pproached this Court for discretio
onary relief of anticipatory bail a
and
having fa
ailed therein (as also before the
Hon’ble Supreme Court), cann
not,
without su
urrendering to the jurisdiction o
f the competent court/ police, se
eek
to circum
mvent the consequence of s
such dismissal by invoking
the
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

extraordin
7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
8
nary jurisdiction of this Court fo
or quashing of FIR(s). It is furth
her
contended
d that a plea for anticipatory ba
ail in itself is a limited and les
sser
relief, wh
hereas a plea for quashing of
FIR is a much wider and mo
ore
consequen
ntial relief, and having fail
led to secure even the les
sser
discretion
nary protection against arrest, th
e petitioner cannot be permitted
d to
seek subs
tantially greater relief of oblitera
ating the very prosecution, witho
out
showing
any material change in circu
umstance (since dismissal of
the
anticipato
ory bail petition) in the factual co
onspectus of the case at hand. It h
has
been sub
bmitted that the petitioner; ha
aving deliberately refrained fro
om
submitting
g himself to the jurisdiction of t
the competent court, having neith
her
surrendere
ed nor sought regular bail, i
is disentitled from invoking
the
discretion
nary and equitable jurisdiction o
f this Court. It is, thus, contend
ded
that perm
mitting the petitioner to main
ntain the present petition in
the
circumsta
ances as noticed hereinabove, w
would amount to permitting him
m to
circumven
nt the earlier order(s) which he h
has already to obtain.
of the petition in hand is entrea

On these grounds, dismissal
ted
for.
5.
I have heard learned counsel
for the rival parties and have go
one
through th
he available records of the case.
6.
Before proceedings further
r with the matter, it would
be
passed by this Court in CRM CRM- CRM CRM
-M-
apposite t
to refer herein to a judgment p
12541 12541-20 12541 12541 20 20 20
026 026 026 026 titled as Kuldeep Singh v Kuldeep Singh v Kuldeep Singh v Kuldeep Singh v
vs. State of Punjab and others vs. State of Punjab and others vs. State of Punjab and others vs. State of Punjab and others
s = s = s = s =
2026:PHH 2026:PHH 2026:PHH 2026:PHH
HC:069608, HC:069608, HC:069608, HC:069608, the relevant whereo
f reads as under:
“Prime Issue Prime Issue Prime Issue Prime Issue
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
9
5. The prime issue
that arises for consideration is as
s to
whether the petition in hand oug
ght to be granted and the impugned F
FIR
(as also proceedings arising theref
efrom) ought to be quashed.
The seminal legal
l issue that arises for cogitation is as
as to
whether the petition under Sectio
ion 528 of the BNSS (erstwhile Sect
ction
482 of Cr. P.C.) ought to be en
entertained following the dismissal o
of a
petition for anticipatory bail; th
he petitioner having remained at lar
arge,
during the interregnum, and has
failed to surrender to the jurisdiction
n of
law.
Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis
6. Undoubtedly, whil
ile the statutory parameters governing
g the
grant of Anticipatory Bail unde
er Section 482 BNSS, 2023 (erstwh
while
Section 438 Cr.P.C., 1973) and t
the inherent powers of this Court un
nder
Section 528 BNSS, 2023 (erstwh
hile Section 482 Cr.P.C.) operate wit
ithin
distinct legal domains, they are n
not entirely sequestered from the fact
ctual
substratum of a case.
Where a plea for
Anticipatory Bail has been delibera
ated
upon and rejected on merits (and
more so, when that rejection has attain
ined
finality through subsequent di
dismissal of appeal, whereby it w
was
impugned) there arises a form
midable judicial finding regarding
the
existence of a prima facie case
e. By declining the prayer for grant
t of
Anticipatory Bail, the Court provi
vides a judicial imprimatur to the ongo
oing
investigation, signaling that the
he allegations are of such gravity
y or
substantiated nature that they
warrant, or atleast permit custod
odial
interrogation. Ergo, thereafter, th
the investigation is not rendered a m
mere
administrative exercise but a proc
cess stamped with judicial legitimacy.
To
leap from the dismissal of Anti
ticipatory Bail directly to a petition
for
quashing of FIR, without any
ny material change in circumstanc
nces,
warranting an interference, is to
o fundamentally ignore this prima fa
facie
validity. It is a cardinal principle o
of legal logic, encapsulated in the max
axim
in toto et pars continetur i.e., th
he part is contained in the whole, tha
hat a
litigant cannot seek a superio
or remedy when the threshold for
or a
subordinate relief has not been
met. It is an inherent legal paradox
x to
suggest that this Court, having fo
found the petitioner’s case insufficien
nt to
warrant the "lesser" relief of pro
otection from arrest, would, on the sa
ame
factual matrix, grant the "large
ger" relief of absolute exoneration
via
quashing. To entertain such a plea
ea would be to turn the legal hierarchy
y on
its head. Seeking the quashing of
f FIR, immediately following the fail
ilure
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
ge in
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment
of an Anticipatory Bail petition, i
in the absence of any material change

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
10 10 10 10
circumstances, is a futile pursuit
t of an outcome that even the logic d
does
not support. This attempt to se
ecure a second bite at the apple, is
s an
inherently absurd legal endeavou
our. Such a manoeuvre is not merely
ly a
misuse of the process of law; it
t is rather an affront to the principles
s of
judicial finality, as it compels the
e court to re-deliberate a position alre
eady
settled during earlier proceedin
ngs. By adopting such a course,
the
petitioner herein engages in a
a form of procedural artifice that
t is
antithetical to the bona fides
required of a litigant invoking
the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this C
Court.
Consequently, suc
uch petition born out of a desire
e to
circumvent the statutory machin
nery, must be viewed as an attempt
t to
frustrate the administration of jus
stice and cannot be countenanced by t
this
Court.
6.1. This Court must h
hasten to add a necessary caveat to
the
aforementioned observations to m
maintain the fine balance of procedu
dural
equity.
While it is forth
h coming from above discussion tha
at a
petition for quashing of FIR is n
not entertainable, immediately, follow
wing
the dismissal of an anticipatory b
bail plea, absent a radical metamorpho
hosis
in the factual circumstances; how
owever, the converse of this proposit
ition
does not hold true. The dismissal
al of a petition for quashing the FIR d
does
not, ipso facto, operate as a juris
sdictional bar to the entertainment of
f an
application for anticipatory bail.
l. Since the quashing of an FIR is
the
ultimate and most larger relief, e
effectively terminating the prosecution
n in
its infancy, its denial merely sign
gnifies that there is sufficient materia
al to
proceed with an investigation. It d
does not, by necessary implication, m
mean
that the smaller and more transi
sitory relief of protection from arres
st is
unwarranted, as the criteria for
r evaluating the necessity of custod
odial
interrogation differ fundamentall
lly from the high threshold required
d to
terminate a criminal proceeding a
altogether. Furthermore, the dismissa
al of
a quashing petition under Secti
tion 528 BNSS is often based on
the
principle that the Court will not c
conduct a mini-trial at the threshold; y
yet,
the liberty of the individual rem
mains a sacrosanct constitutional va
alue
under Article 21. Therefore, ev
ven if the Court declines to quash
h an
investigation, the door to anticip
patory bail remains ajar, as the accu
used
may still demonstrate that his ar
arrest is not a requisite for the effect
ctive
administration of justice. To hold
d otherwise would be to create a legal c
cul-
de-sac, unfairly penalizing a litiga
ant for invoking a higher remedy.
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

7.
7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
11 11 11 11
he petition in hand , it remains
Reverting to the facts of th
an
undispute
ed position before this Court
that the prayer of the petition
ner
declined by this Court, vide Ord
seeking g
grant of anticipatory bail stood d
der
dated 20.0
03.2024. The challenge carried t
thereagainst by way of SLP befo
fore
the Hon’b
ble Supreme Court also did n
not find favour with the Hon’
ble
issed vide order dated 16.04.20
Supreme
Court, which came to be dismi
24.
ial imprimatur thus accorded to t
The judic
the rejection of anticipatory bail
by
the High
Court (and subsequently uphol
lding of dismissal by the Hon’
ble
or the nonce , to the assessment
Supreme
Court) lends finality, at least fo
t of
the entitl
ement of the petitioner to dis
scretionary relief. The distincti
ion
sought to
o be drawn by the learned S
Senior counsel between the t
wo
proceedin
ngs cannot, however, be viewed i
in isolation from the conduct of
the
petitioner
r. The petitioner cannot be permi
itted to keep the criminal process
s in
suspended
d animation by successively inv
voking a wider jurisdiction unde
er a
differently
y couched prayer.

It is an admitted and r
rather telling circumstance th
hat,
subsequen
nt to the aforesaid dismissals, th
he petitioner has neither chosen
n to
surrender
before the competent court no
or made himself available for
the
purposes
of investigation. Such recalcitran
nt conduct, bordering on deliber
rate
evasion o
of the due process of law, disen
ntitles the petitioner from invoki
ing
the extrao
ordinary and equitable jurisdic
ction of this Court. The approa
ach
adopted b
by the petitioner appears to b
e nothing short of a hit and
try
stratagem
m. It is more in the nature o
of an attempt to circumvent
the
consequen
nces of earlier adverse judicial o
orders by re-agitating substantia
ally
fferent relief. Ergo, the issue is n
the same
cause under the veneer of a dif
not
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

merely o
7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
12 12 12 12
f nomenclature or the form i
n which relief is sought, as
the
extraordin
nary jurisdiction of the Court c
cannot be invoked as a means
of
circumven
nting the consequences flow
wing from an earlier judic
cial
determina
ation.
7.1.
It is trite that while declin
ning anticipatory bail, the Co
ourt
ordinarily
y does not, and indeed cannot, ma
andate the surrender of the accus
sed
before the
e investigating agency. However
r, this procedural limitation cann
not
be miscon
nstrued as a license to the petitio
oner to remain in abscondence an
nd,
simultane
eously, seek indulgence of the C
Court in collateral proceedings. T
The
maxim ‘h
he who seeks equity must do
o equity ; a litigant who stands
in
defiance
of the law cannot be permitte
d to seek its protection, squar
rely
applies.
The petitioner, having failed
d to secure the concession
of
anticipato
ory bail both before this Court
and the Hon’ble Supreme Cou
urt,
cannot be
e permitted to achieve indirectly
what he could not secure direct
tly.
Permitting
g such a course would not on
nly erode the sanctity of judic
cial
proceedin
ngs but would also encourage liti
igants to indulge in speculative a
and
successive
e litigation, thereby underminin
ng the administration of crimi
nal
justice. Th
he change in the complexion of t
the relief cannot, by itself, confe
er a
fresh enti
itlement to invoke the extraor
rdinary jurisdiction of this Cou
urt.
Moreover
r, the relief of quashing of FIR,
being extraordinary in nature, is
s to
be exercis
sed sparingly and with circumsp
ection, and only in cases where
the
allegation
ns, even if taken at their face val
lue, fail to disclose the commissi
ion
of any co
ognizable offence or where the c
continuation of proceedings wou
uld
amount to
o palpable abuse of process. A p
person who has consciously chos
sen
to evade
investigation cannot, in the sa
ame breath, seek adjudication
on
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM-M- CRM CRM

merits of
7841 7841-2025 7841 7841 2025 2025 2025
13 13 13 13
the very proceedings he seeks t
to thwart. Viewed thus, when bo
oth
this Cour
rt as also the Hon’ble Supreme
e Court have, upon considerati
on,
declined
to extend the protective umb
brella of anticipatory bail to
the
petitioner
r, it would be wholly incongru
uous and bereft of sound judic
cial
reasoning
g to entertain, much less allow, a
prayer for quashing of FIR.
8.
In view of the prevenient rati
iocination, it is ordained thus:
The petition in hand , being n
(i)
not entertainable at this juncture
, is
gly dismissed for the nonce whil
according
le reserving liberty in favour of
the
petitioner
r to approach this Court again, in
n case the cause of action so ensu
ues,
after subm
mitting himself to the jurisdiction
n of the process of law.
(ii)
Any observations made and/
/ or submissions noted hereinabo
ove
shall not
have any effect on the merits o
of the case and the Sate/concern
ned
Court sh
hall proceed further, in accor
rdance with law, without bei
ing
influenced
d with them.
(iii)
Pending application(s), if any
y, shall also stand disposed of.








Septembe
Ajay/mahavir


(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)
JUDGE JUDGE
JUDGE JUDGE


er 03, 2026
r
Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No

Whether reportable:
Yes/No
MAHAVIR SINGH
2026.09.07 09:45
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/ judgment