‘Second Bite at the Apple’ Not Allowed: P&H High Court Slams Absconding Accused for Seeking FIR Quashing After Bail Rejection, Imposes Costs

Case Name: Kuldeep Singh v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 06 May 2026

Citation: CRM-M-12541-2026

Bench: Justice Sumeet Goel

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that an accused whose anticipatory bail plea has already been rejected by the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot subsequently seek quashing of the FIR on the same factual matrix without any material change in circumstances. The Court termed such litigation a “second bite at the apple,” described it as a misuse of judicial process, and dismissed the petition with costs.

Summary: The petition under Section 528 BNSS sought quashing of FIR No.01 dated 10.01.2026 registered at Police Station NRI District Mohali under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita relating to cheating, forgery, conspiracy, and criminal breach of trust.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of NRI complainant Jaskirat Singh Tiwana, who alleged that the accused persons, including petitioner Kuldeep Singh, had fabricated a forged agreement to sell in relation to agricultural land owned by his father with the intention of illegally grabbing the property. The complainant alleged that the petitioner actively facilitated execution of the forged agreement and subsequently instituted civil proceedings for specific performance to strengthen the fraudulent claim.

The petitioner argued that the dispute was purely civil in nature arising out of a genuine agreement to sell dated 22.11.2024 under which ₹28 lakhs had allegedly been paid as earnest money. According to the petitioner, the vendor later dishonestly refused to execute the sale deed, compelling him to institute a civil suit for specific performance. It was contended that the criminal proceedings were maliciously initiated only to convert a civil dispute into a criminal case by misusing the special mechanism available for NRIs.

However, the High Court noted that the petitioner had already unsuccessfully sought anticipatory bail before the High Court in CRM-M-3280-2026, which was dismissed on merits. The petitioner’s challenge before the Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition was also rejected. Importantly, despite dismissal of the bail plea, the petitioner neither surrendered nor joined investigation.

The High Court framed the principal issue as whether a petition for quashing of FIR should be entertained after rejection of anticipatory bail where the accused continues to evade investigation.

Delivering a strongly worded judgment, the Court observed that rejection of anticipatory bail on merits grants a “judicial imprimatur” to the investigation and reflects a prima facie satisfaction regarding seriousness of allegations. The Court held that it would be legally incongruous for a litigant to seek the “larger relief” of FIR quashing after failing to secure the “smaller relief” of protection from arrest on the same facts.

The Court repeatedly described the petition as an impermissible attempt to obtain a “second bite at the apple” and held that such procedural manoeuvres undermine judicial finality and the administration of criminal justice. According to the Court, entertaining such pleas would encourage speculative and repetitive litigation.

The High Court further held that a litigant who deliberately avoids investigation cannot simultaneously invoke the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of the Court for quashing proceedings. Applying the maxim “he who seeks equity must do equity,” the Court observed that the petitioner’s conduct bordered upon deliberate evasion of due process.

In particularly sharp observations, the Court termed the petitioner’s conduct a “hit and try stratagem” and condemned attempts to re-agitate settled issues through collateral proceedings. The judgment emphasized that allowing litigants to repeatedly reopen adjudicated issues would reduce the doctrine of finality into a mere suggestion and invite “judicial anarchy.”

The Court also clarified an important distinction in criminal jurisprudence by observing that while dismissal of anticipatory bail may ordinarily bar immediate pursuit of FIR quashing on identical facts, the converse is not necessarily true. According to the Court, rejection of a quashing petition does not automatically bar a subsequent anticipatory bail plea because the legal standards governing both remedies are fundamentally different.

Finding the petition to be a clear abuse of process, the High Court dismissed the quashing petition and imposed costs of ₹5,000 upon the petitioner payable to the District Legal Services Authority, Mohali.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition seeking quashing of the FIR and imposed costs of ₹5,000 upon the petitioner, holding that the petition constituted a misuse of judicial process after failure to secure anticipatory bail before both the High Court and the Supreme Court.