AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—This petition is a text book example to show as to how the process of the Courts could be abused and
proceedings could be dragged on endlessly.
The petitioners are the accused in C.C.No. 6269 of 1989, on the file of XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, on the complaint filed
against them for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C.-
(i). This complaint was entertained by the lower Court on 16-5-1989. On service of summons, the petitioners made a first appearance before the
lower Court on 21 -6-1989, and received the copies.
(ii) Without facing the trial in the said proceedings, the petitioners rushed to this Court, and filed an application for quashing in Crl.M.P.No. 5296
of 1990, u/s 482 Cr. P.C. After hearing the parties, this Court, ultimately dismissed the petition, by order dated 16-1-1991. Thereafter, the
petitioners took up the matter before the Apex Court in SLP No. 81 of 1991, which was also dismissed by the Supreme Court, by its order dated
24-1-1992.
(iii) Thereafter, on 31-3-1992, the trial commenced before the lower Court. P.W. 1 was examined in chief, through whom Exs. Pl to P6 were
marked. The case was adjourned for further evidence to 5-5-1992, thereafter to 4-6-1992. In the mean time, the petitioners filed an application
for discharge before the lower Court.
(iv) During the pendency of this petition, the petitioners again filed petition in the High Court in Crl. O.P. No. 8031 of 1992, u/s 482 Cr. P.C, and
once again the proceedings were stayed. It was pending for nearly three years. When this matter was coming up for final hearing on 23-4-1995,
learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court, to withdraw the said petition. Accordingly, on such permission being granted,
the said Crl. O.P. No. 8031 of 1992, was dismissed as withdrawn. The trial before the lower Court, once again commenced and P.W.I was
further examined and Exs.P7 to PI 1 were marked.
(v) At this stage, the petitioners insisted the Magistrate for the order to be passed, in the application for discharge earlier filed, before the lower
court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, again heard both the parties, on the said petition, and dismissed the same. Against this dismissal order,
the petitioners filed a revision before the Sessions Court, Madras in Crl.R.C.No. 156 of 1995.
(vi) At the time of final disposal, when the Sessions Court was brought to the notice of all these earlier proceedings, the Sessions Court dismissed
the petition on merits, after observing that it was vexatious and filed only with a view to drag on the proceedings, and the Sessions Judge, further
directed the petitioners for their appearance on 29-2-1996, before the lower Court, to face the trial, and directed the lower Court, to complete the
trial on or before 30-4-1996.
(vii) Even after the dismissal order and direction by the Sessions Court, to finish the trial, within the specified date, the petitioners, instead of facing
the trial, in compliance with the orders of Sessions Court, filed another petition in Crl.M.P.No. 108 of 1996, before the lower Court, for discharge
u/s 245(2) Cr. P.C.
(viii) This application was filed on 1-3-1996. The ground urged in this petition is that the private complaint was filed-by the two complainants and
the same was not maintainable in law, and as such, they are entitled to be discharged. This application was contested by the respondents herein, by
filing a counter, stating that though in the cause title, it is mentioned as complainants 1 and 2, the body of the complaint would show the 2nd
complainant as the actual complainant, being a company, which is represented by its Assistant Manager, who is mentioned as the first complainant,
and that therefore, this should be treated as a private complaint filed by one person, viz., the 2nd complainant.
On consideration of the entire materials, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition, holding that the averments of the complaint and other
materials would show that the second complainant being a company is the real complainant, who is represented by the Assistant Manager, whose
name is mentioned as a first complainant. While holding this, the learned Magistrate also referred about the earlier attempts made by the petitioners
to drag on the proceedings for a very long time. Being aggrieved over this order, the petitioners in the fourth round, have come to this forum, under
the guise of challenging the impugned order.
Let me at the outset mention, that the point urged in the discharge petition, as referred above has no substance. The materials available before
the Court, at this stage, when the discharge application has been filed by the petitioners are not only the complaint, sworn statement, but also the
deposition of P.W.I, and Exs. Pl to Pll. A reading of these materials would clearly show the complainant is M/s Tata Iron & Steel Company,
represented by Anjan Kumar Bhaduri, its Assistant Manager. As such, the cause of action, as alleged in the complaint and other materials is only
with reference to the company, the actual complainant. Therefore, the question of joint complaint having been filed as alleged in this case, does not
arise at all. Even in paragraph 2 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the 2nd complainant (the company) is represented by its Assistant Manager
Anjan Kumar Bhaduri. Though in the cause title, it is mentioned as complainants 1 and 2, it must be taken to mean, in view of the averments in the
body of the complaint, sworn statement, depositions and exhibits, that the complaint was not a joint complaint, but it is a complaint by the
company, through its Assistant Manager. Therefore, the citations referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners, (1) C.S. Desai v. B. Paul
Abrao (1963 K.L.T. 548) and (2) R. Krishnamurthy and Another v. M.P. Raja and Another (1989 M.L.J. R (Crl.) 13) would not apply to this
case.
In these circumstances, I do not find any justifiable reason to accept the contention raised in this revision. In my view, the lower Court has given
correct reasons to dismiss the petition.
As indicated earlier, it is quite shocking and surprising to see the conduct of the petitioners who have driven the respondents/complainant from
pillar to post, without allowing the learned Magistrate to go on with trial. Before the commencement of trial, the petitioners came to High Court and
obtained stay in the revision, which was pending for about two years. Again the matter was taken to Supreme Court, where the petitioners were
able to drag on the matter for one year. Then, after the commencement of the trial on 31- 3-1992, filed a petition for discharge before the lower
Court, and thereby stalled the trial for some period.
Even without getting an order on the said petition from the lower Court, again came to the High Court, and filed an application for quashing, and
the trial was stayed for about 3 years. However, at the final disposal the learned counsel did not think it fit to argue the matter, but got permission
for withdrawing the said petition. So, ultimately the petitioner succeeded in getting the trial stayed, by getting the quashing application pending
before this Court, for three years. Then again, after some progress in the trial, the petitioners insisted that some orders were to be passed in the
earlier discharge petition, for the best reasons known to them. Accordingly, the said discharge petition which was already pending, was disposed
of by the Court, dismissing the prayer.
This order was taken up to Sessions Court, again obtained stay in the revision. At the time of final disposal, as referred to earlier, on knowing
the chequered history of the case, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the petition as vexatious. The Sessions Court also directed the lower
Court, to complete the trial, on or before 30-4- 1996. At this stage, the petitioners having again inclined to stall the proceedings filed a petition for
discharge probably to get another dismissal order, to enable the petitioners to come to this Court, and obtain an order of stay again. As a matter of
fact, they have succeeded in that attempt also, in having stalled the proceedings before the lower Court, for another one year. So, the complaint
filed in the year 1989 has been successfully dragged on, even though trial had already commenced, for about eight years.
It is also to be borne in mind at this stage that in these applications, the petitioners, never mentioned about the earlier proceedings. The history of
the proceedings, as seen earlier would indicate that the petitioners, somehow or other, wanted to avoid the proceedings, by filing one or other,
either in trial Court, or in Sessions Court or in High Court or in Supreme Court. This conduct, in my view, is highly deplorable, and deserves to be
condemned. Therefore, I am of the opinion, that imposition of the sufficient costs would meet the ends of justice, in view of the fact;/that the
respondents had been sufficiently suffered and humiliated by the filing of the vexatious petitions, one after another, by the petitioners in some forum
or other.
In the light of the above circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five Thousand only) to the respondents towards
costs on or before 7- 7-1997 and after obtaining the voucher for accepting the same by the respondents, the petitioners are directed to file the
same before the lower Court. The trial Court is also directed to take up the case, immediately on communication of this order, and dispose of the
matter within one month from the said date.
With the above directions, the revision is dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M.P. is also dismissed.