Writ jurisdiction cannot bypass revisional remedies when the same grounds against a criminal complaint were already raised and remain pending.

A writ petition seeking quashing of a criminal complaint was held not maintainable when the same grounds had already been raised in a discharge application and could be pursued in revision. The challenge invoked double jeopardy arguments under Article 20(2) of the Constitution and Section 300 CrPC, but those objections had already been taken before the Magistrate under Section 245(2) CrPC, and the dismissal of that application had been carried into the revisional process. In these circumstances, the writ was treated as a parallel challenge that would bypass the statutory remedy, and the complaint was not quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the criminal complaint was maintainable when the same grounds had already been raised in the discharge application and revision proceedings, and whether such parallel challenge could be entertained.

Analysis: The challenge to the complaint rested on the contention that the alleged false statement attracted another prosecution under the Customs Act and that the complaint under Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was barred by double jeopardy principles under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India and Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. However, those very grounds had already been urged before the Magistrate in the discharge application under Section 245(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which had been dismissed. A revision against that order was stated to be available and had already been invoked. In these circumstances, a direct writ challenge to the complaint on the same grounds amounted to bypassing the statutory route and seeking a parallel adjudication on issues already raised.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable as a parallel challenge on the same grounds, and the complaint was not quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Writ jurisdiction should not be used to circumvent or duplicate a pending statutory remedy when the same grounds have already been raised and are capable of adjudication in the appropriate revisional forum.

---