Article 32 maintainability barred by parallel High Court remedies and pending proceedings on the same cross-examination dispute.

A writ petition under Article 32 was held not maintainable where the petitioner had already pursued the same substantive relief before the High Court through proceedings under the CrPC and Articles 226/227, and those proceedings remained pending. The Supreme Court treated the fresh petition as simultaneous invocation of parallel remedies on the same cause of action, and held that the availability of efficacious alternative proceedings, coupled with the pending High Court matter, amounted to abuse of process. The precedent cited on the Negotiable Instruments Act was found inapplicable to the maintainability issue. The petition was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India was maintainable when the petitioner had already availed alternative remedies before the High Court and sought similar reliefs concerning the conduct of cross-examination in proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The petitioner had already challenged the relevant orders before the High Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, and those proceedings were still pending. The petition before the Supreme Court sought the same substantive directions against the Magistrate and the opposite party, without assailing any order of the High Court. The Court treated this as simultaneous invocation of parallel remedies on the same cause of action and held that the availability of efficacious remedies, coupled with pending proceedings in the High Court, made the Article 32 petition an abuse of process. The reliance placed on precedent concerning the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was found inapplicable to the maintainability question.

Conclusion: The writ petition under Article 32 was not maintainable in the facts of the case and was dismissed as an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi: Article 32 will not be entertained to obtain the same relief already pursued before the High Court through efficacious alternative proceedings, and such parallel invocation of remedies may amount to abuse of the process of court.

---