Can accused seek quashing of FIR after denial of anticipatory bail? P&H High Court answers

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday ruled that an accused cannot seek quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) immediately after he has been denied anticipatory bail unless there has been a material change in circumstances of the case [Kuldeep Singh v State of Punjab and Others]

Justice Sumeet Goel explained that when a plea for anticipatory bail is rejected on merits, a judicial finding regarding the existence of a prima facie case arises.

The Court added that an investigation gets a judicial approval after denial of anticipatory bail, signalling that the allegations are of such gravity that they warrant custodial interrogation.

The investigation is not rendered a mere administrative exercise but a process stamped with judicial legitimacy, the Court said.

"To leap from the dismissal of Anticipatory Bail directly to a petition for quashing of FIR, without any material change in circumstances, warranting an interference, is to fundamentally ignore this prima facie validity," the Bench held.

The Court further said that a litigant cannot seek a superior remedy when the threshold for a subordinate relief has not been met.

"It is an inherent legal paradox to suggest that this Court, having found the petitioner’s case insufficient to warrant the "lesser" relief of protection from arrest, would, on the same factual matrix, grant the "larger" relief of absolute exoneration via quashing," the Bench said.

The Court observed that to entertain such a quashing plea in the absence of any material change in circumstances, is a futile pursuit of an outcome that even the logic does not support.

"This attempt to secure a second bite at the apple, is an inherently absurd legal endeavour. Such a manoeuvre is not merely a misuse of the process of law; it is rather an affront to the principles of judicial finality, as it compels the court to re-deliberate a position already settled during earlier proceedings," it added.

Court's time is a precious public resource and its diversion into the redundant channels of repetitive pleas is a vexatious abuse of process, the judge said.

However, the Court also opined that the dismissal of a petition for quashing the FIR would not operate as a bar to the entertainment of an application for anticipatory bail.

"It does not, by necessary implication, mean that the smaller and more transitory relief of protection from arrest is unwarranted, as the criteria for evaluating the necessity of custodial interrogation differ fundamentally from the high threshold required to terminate a criminal proceeding altogether," the Bench said.

The Court made these observations in a judgment seeking quashing of an FIR against an accused booked for committing fraud by making a forged agreement to sell to grab the property of a Non-resident Indian (NRI).

In February, the High Court had denied anticipatory to the accused – a decision later upheld by the Supreme Court.

In the order passed on May 6 in the quashing petition, the High Court noted that the accused neither surrendered nor joined the investigation after he was denied anticipatory bail.

In these circumstances, the Court considered whether he can seek quashing of the FIR. The Bench opined that the petitioner's conduct bordered on deliberate evasion of the due process of law.

It disentitles him from invoking the extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction of this Court, it added.

"The approach adopted by the petitioner appears to be nothing short of a hit and try stratagem. It is more in the nature of an attempt to circumvent the consequences of earlier adverse judicial orders by re-agitating substantially the same cause under the veneer of a different relief," the Court further said.

The Court acknowledged that while declining anticipatory bail, it ordinarily does not and cannot mandate the surrender of the accused before the investigating agency. However, it added, this procedural limitation cannot be misconstrued as a license to remain evasive from investigation.

"A person who has consciously chosen to evade investigation cannot, in the same breath, seek adjudication on merits of the very proceedings he seeks to thwart," the Court said while dismissing the plea with costs of ₹5,000.

Advocate SP Yadav represented the accused.

[Read Judgment]