The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that an accused cannot seek quashing of an FIR immediately after failing to secure anticipatory bail, especially without surrendering or showing any change in circumstances.Dismissing a petition under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, Justice Sumeet Goel made it clear that such attempts to seek FIR quashing after anticipatory bail plea’s dismissal amounted to misuse of process and an affront to judicial finality, while imposing costs of Rs 5,000 on a petitioner in one such matter.“This attempt to secure a second bite at the apple is an inherently absurd legal endeavour, 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.”At the outset, the court underscored the larger legal principle governing criminal process: a litigant cannot leap from denial of a “lesser relief” like anticipatory bail to claim a “larger relief” of quashing the FIR on the same facts.Laying down the broader legal position, Justice Goel ruled that rejection of anticipatory bail carried a “formidable judicial finding” on the existence of a prima facie case and lent judicial legitimacy to the investigation. The Bench cautioned that attempting to secure FIR quashing immediately thereafter was not just procedurally flawed but inherently contradictory.“Where a plea for anticipatory bail has been deliberated upon and rejected on merits (and more so, when that rejection has attained finality through subsequent dismissal of appeal, whereby it was impugned) there arises a formidable judicial finding regarding the existence of a prima facie case. By declining the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, the Court provides a judicial imprimatur to the ongoing investigation, signalling that the allegations are of such gravity or substantiated nature that they warrant, or at least permit custodial interrogation,” Justice Goel asserted.Explaining the implications, the Bench asserted the investigation thereafter could not be treated as a mere administrative exercise, but as one backed by judicial endorsement. “To leap from the dismissal of Anticipatory Bail directly to a petition for quashing of FIR, without any material change in circumstances is to fundamentally ignore this prima facie validity,” Justice Goel asserted.Invoking legal logic, Justice Goel added a litigant could not bypass thresholds of relief. “It is a cardinal principle of legal logic that a litigant cannot seek a superior remedy when the threshold for a subordinate relief has not been met,” the Bench observed.Calling out the contradiction, the Court added: “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 grant the ‘larger’ relief of absolute exoneration via quashing.”Terming such attempts as untenable, Justice Goel observed: “Seeking the quashing of FIR, immediately following the failure of an anticipatory bail petition is a futile pursuit of an outcome that even the logic does not support.”The Bench further described the approach as an abuse of process: “This attempt to secure a second bite at the apple, is an inherently absurd legal endeavour not merely a misuse of the process of law; it is rather an affront to the principles of judicial finality.”At the same time, Justice Goel drew a crucial distinction, clarifying that the reverse situation did not apply. The dismissal of an FIR quashing plea did not bar the accused from seeking anticipatory bail.“While a petition for quashing of FIR is not entertainable, following the dismissal of an anticipatory bail plea the converse does not hold true.”The Court explained that quashing an FIR was a far higher and final relief, while anticipatory bail was a limited protection concerning arrest. “The liberty of the individual remains a sacrosanct constitutional value under Article 21 even if the Court declines to quash an investigation, the door to anticipatory bail remains ajar.”