Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹50,000 Costs on Ex-Bank Manager for Forum Shopping: Key Lessons for Litigants

Computer-generated English audio

Lucknow / Jalna: The Allahabad High Court’s Lucknow Bench dismissed a former bank manager’s repeated challenge to prosecution sanction in a CBI case, imposing ₹50,000 in costs. Justice Subhash Vidyarthi’s October 13, 2026 decision highlights the consequences of forum shopping and misuse of judicial process.

Background of the banking case

The case arose from a State Bank of India complaint alleging cheating and misappropriation of approximately ₹7.40 crore involving 15 export bills connected to Shivang Carpet Private Limited. A CBI charge sheet named six persons, including former branch manager Hemant Kumar Prasad. He was accused of processing 12 export bills on photocopies without following required banking procedures. These are allegations; the ruling on sanction did not determine criminal guilt.

How the challenge reached the High Court

Prosecution sanction was granted on September 29, 2021. A Division Bench dismissed Prasad’s challenge on June 16, 2026. He subsequently questioned the sanction before the trial court and again approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC and Section 528 BNSS. His arguments included an approximately 27-month delay and an alleged lack of independent application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

What the Court held

The Court explained that delay in granting sanction does not automatically nullify prosecution. Having lost the challenge before a Division Bench, the petitioner should have pursued the appropriate remedy against that judgment rather than repeatedly reopening the issue through different proceedings. The Court ordered ₹50,000 in costs payable within 30 days, directed toward the Children’s Home (Girls), Lucknow, with recovery as arrears of land revenue if unpaid.

Adv. Mahesh Dhannawat’s message to litigants

“Every citizen has the right to seek justice, but repeating a settled issue before different forums is not a substitute for the proper appellate remedy. Litigants should study earlier orders, available appeals, limitation periods, jurisdiction and possible costs before initiating fresh proceedings. Responsible litigation protects individual rights and judicial resources.”

— Adv. Mahesh Sitaram Dhannawat, B.Com., LL.M., Jalna.

Takeaway: The judgment does not prohibit legitimate appeals or genuinely new claims. It warns against attempts to relitigate the same decided issue without a sound legal basis.

Case: Hemant Kumar Prasad v. Prosecution Sanctioning Authority Through General Manager, SBI Lucknow and Others; Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 6813 of 2026. Source: Law Trend.