SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed an FIR registered by Budgam Police against a Delhi-based businessman accused of orchestrating a defamatory social media campaign against a World Trade Centre-linked company, holding that the criminal proceedings amounted to a misuse of the judicial process through “forum shopping” and parallel litigation.
Delivering the judgment in Vishvendra Singh versus UT of JK and Another, Justice MA Chowdhary observed that the respondent company had initiated multiple proceedings in different courts based on the same allegations while concealing the existence of earlier cases from subsequent forums.
The petition had been filed by Vishvendra Singh, a resident of Lajpat Nagar in New Delhi, through advocates Vikas Malik and Mushtaq Ahmad Dar. The Union Territory was represented by Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh.
The case arose from allegations that Singh had initiated a Twitter campaign titled “Anti India WTC – TALIBAN – ACT” after an investment event organised by WTC Faridabad Infrastructure at Humhama near Srinagar in August 2021. Acting on a complaint filed under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Special Mobile Magistrate, Budgam had directed registration of FIR No. 327/2021 under Sections 469 and 505(II) IPC.
Before the High Court, Singh alleged that he was being targeted after exposing what he described as a large-scale real estate fraud involving companies linked to the WTC Group. He claimed that multiple criminal proceedings had been launched against him in Srinagar, Budgam and New Delhi on the basis of the same set of allegations in an attempt to harass and silence him.
The Court found substance in the argument that the respondent company had pursued parallel proceedings while suppressing material facts from different courts. Referring to the sequence of events, the Court noted that after obtaining a summoning order from the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar on October 7, 2021, the respondent approached the Budgam court within days seeking registration of another criminal case on the same allegations.
“This deliberate concealment of prior proceedings suggests an attempt to obtain conflicting or cumulative judicial orders by keeping different courts in the dark,” the Court observed, adding that such conduct “amounts to a fraud on the court and a gross abuse of the judicial process.”
Justice Chowdhary also took note of the fact that both the petitioner and officials of the respondent company were based in New Delhi, yet proceedings had simultaneously been initiated in Srinagar, Budgam and Saket courts.
“This ‘multi-jurisdictional’ litigation strategy over a singular alleged act is clearly designed to overawe the petitioner,” the Court said, observing that the law was being used “not as a shield for justice, but as a sword for harassment.”
During the proceedings, the police informed the Court that screenshots and URLs of the alleged tweets had been collected and verified through the Cyber Cell in Srinagar, while identification of the actual users from Twitter Inc. was still awaited. The police also submitted that a complaint earlier filed by Singh in Delhi against the respondent company had been closed after no cognizable offence was found.
The respondent company defended the proceedings by arguing that the Srinagar complaint and the Budgam FIR related to different offences carrying distinct legal ingredients. While one case pertained to defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, the Budgam FIR invoked Sections 469 and 505 IPC relating to forgery and public mischief.
The High Court, however, rejected the contention and held that the “substratum” of both proceedings remained identical. The Court said the respondent could not split a single cause of action into separate criminal cases merely by invoking different penal provisions.
“The facts of the same occurrence cannot be allowed to be broken into pieces so as to file multiple complaints,” the judgment said, adding that all offences arising out of the same occurrence were required to be investigated and tried together.
Calling the litigation a “textbook example of forum shopping,” the Court further observed that the complaints filed in Srinagar and Budgam were “carbon copy of each other” and stemmed entirely from the same alleged social media activity.
Relying on Supreme Court rulings in TT Antony v. State of Kerala and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI, the High Court reiterated that there cannot be multiple FIRs or parallel criminal proceedings relating to the same transaction.
Holding that continuation of the Budgam FIR would amount to a “travesty of justice,” the Court finally allowed the petition and quashed the order passed by the Budgam Magistrate as well as FIR No. 327/2021 and all consequential proceedings arising from it.
