Parallel Criminal Proceedings Inadmissible Once Section 340 CrPC Inquiry Is Initiated by High Court for Same Allegation

In brief

The question

1. Whether two parallel proceedings (one under Section 340 Cr.P.C. initiated by the Court and another via a private FIR) can be permitted to proceed for the same cause of action.

The court held

The Court answered the core issue by holding that once the High Court has initiated proceedings and invited objections under Section 340 Cr.P.C., a subsequent FIR for the same set of facts is not permissible.

It also directed

The Court held that the parallel criminal proceedings in Case No. 415 of 2025 were an abuse of process and violated judicial discipline.

The High Court set aside the entire proceedings of Case No. 415 of 2025, including the charge sheet dated 10.09.2025 and the cognizance/summoning order dated 17.09.2025, specifically in respect of the applicants.

The application under Section 528 BNSS was allowed.

01Facts

The applicants, partners in M/s Swear Health Care Pvt. Ltd., were accused of instructing their employee, Rajesh Kumar, to file a petition under Article 227 (No. 1997 of 2024) before the Allahabad High Court using a forged vakalatnama and affidavit in the name of the informant’s firm, M/s Anondita Healthcare.

¶ 3-4

Prior to the FIR, the High Court had already initiated proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. regarding the same forgery on 13.03.2024.

¶ 5

Despite this, the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) lodged FIR No. 167 of 2024 on 13.08.2024.

¶ 16

Following an investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 10.09.2025, and the Magistrate took cognizance on 17.09.2025 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, and 120B IPC.

¶ 2

The applicants challenged these proceedings as an abuse of process and a violation of the rule against double jeopardy.

¶ 6, 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether two parallel proceedings (one under Section 340 Cr.P.C. initiated by the Court and another via a private FIR) can be permitted to proceed for the same cause of action.

¶ 17

ii.2. Whether an FIR lodged by an aggrieved person for forgery of court-related documents is maintainable after the High Court has already initiated an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

¶ 19-20

03Law Applied

Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. (now corresponding to the BNSS), which bars cognizance of offences involving forgery in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court.

¶ 7

Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005), which clarifies the distinction between documents forged before being filed in court versus those altered while in custodial legacy.

¶ 7, 11

The principle of judicial discipline and the constitutional safeguard against double jeopardy under Article 20(2) to prevent overlapping prosecutions for the same act.

¶ 6, 20

Provisions in the judgment · 10 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 419 Section 420 Section 467 Section 468 Section 471

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 195 Section 340 Section 482 Section 161

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the High Court had already taken cognizance of the alleged forgery through Section 340 Cr.P.C. proceedings and had invited objections months before the FIR was lodged.

¶ 16-17

The Court reasoned that allowing the subsequent police-led prosecution to continue would render the High Court's own ongoing inquiry redundant and infructuous.

¶ 18, 20

While acknowledging that Iqbal Singh Marwah allows private complaints for documents forged "outside" the court, the Court noted the unique factual matrix here: the informant had already elected the remedy of Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the High Court.

¶ 19

The court determined that judicial discipline requires the initial High Court proceeding to take preference over a subsequent FIR filed by the same person on the same facts.

¶ 20

The Court found the investigation/charge sheet flawed because the fact of the pending Section 340 Cr.P.C. inquiry was suppressed from the Investigating Officer.

¶ 20