Natha Ram Choudhary vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr.

The present application has been filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the order dated 04.08.2026, whereby S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.436/2025 filed by the petitioner seeking recall/restoration of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1843/2024 came to be disposed of on account of non-prosecution.

Before considering the submissions advanced in the present application, it would be appropriate to notice the complete chronology of the proceedings.

The petitioner had filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1843/2024 before this Court. The said petition came up for consideration on 08.11.2024, when learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. At the same time, liberty was granted to the petitioner to raise the issue before the learned trial Court at the stage of determination of charge. The stay application was also disposed of accordingly. Thus, the order dated 08.11.2024 did not foreclose the petitioner from raising the grievance before the learned trial Court. On the contrary, an express liberty was granted to him to raise the issue at the appropriate stage of the trial.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.13/2025, seeking recall/restoration in relation to the aforesaid proceedings. The said application came to be dismissed as not pressed on 07.08.2025.

Subsequently, the petitioner filed another application, being S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.436/2025, seeking recall of the order dated 08.11.2024 and restoration of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1843/2024. In the said application, the petitioner questioned the authority of the counsel who had sought withdrawal of the original petition. It was his case that the counsel who had withdrawn the petition had not been engaged or instructed by him and that he had engaged another counsel to contest the matter.

The said application was taken up by this Court on 07.10.2025. On that date, the petitioner appeared in person. Having regard to the allegations made by the petitioner concerning the counsel, this Court considered it appropriate to hear the concerned counsel and directed that the name of learned counsel Shri B.R. Bishnoi be shown in the cause title. The matter was thereafter fixed for further consideration.

On 17.10.2025, the petitioner again appeared in person and sought time to file an affidavit in support of the allegations which he had made orally against his counsel. The request was noticed and time was granted. The matter was thereafter listed for 10.11.2025. On 10.11.2025, however, the petitioner was not present. The matter was thereafter listed after six weeks. The application again came up on 02.07.2026, but none appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Ultimately, on 04.08.2026, this Court noticed that the application had remained pending for a considerable period and that, despite having been listed on 10.11.2025 and again on 02.07.2026, neither the petitioner nor learned counsel appeared to prosecute the matter. In these circumstances, S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.436/2025 was disposed of. The Court also noticed that the original petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 08.11.2024 with liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue before the learned trial Court at the stage of determination of charge.

The present application has now been filed seeking recall of the order dated 04.08.2026.

The petitioner appearing in person has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Firm Jethmal and Sons v. State of Rajasthan, decided on 11.07.2025, particularly with reference to the principle of audi alteram partem. The said judgment dealt with dismissal for non-prosecution of an appeal against conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held, in the facts of that case, that an appeal against conviction could not be dismissed for default without consideration on merits and that the appellant ought not to suffer on account of the negligence or misconduct of counsel.

There can be no quarrel with the general principle of audi alteram partem, namely, that a person whose rights or interests are proposed to be adversely affected ought ordinarily to be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing. However, the applicability of the said principle has to be examined in the factual and procedural context in which it is invoked. The facts of the present case are materially different. S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.436/2025 was itself an application filed by the petitioner seeking recall of the earlier order dated 08.11.2024. The petitioner was, therefore, the applicant who was required to prosecute the said application. He was not deprived of an opportunity of hearing by an order passed behind his back. Rather, he was afforded repeated opportunities to appear and prosecute the application. The record demonstrates that the petitioner appeared in person on 07.10.2025 and again on 17.10.2025. On 17.10.2025, he specifically sought time to file an affidavit in support of the allegations made by him against the counsel. The matter was thereafter listed on 10.11.2025, when he did not appear. It was again listed on 02.07.2026, when also none appeared on his behalf. The application was thereafter disposed of on 04.08.2026. Thus, the present case is not one where the petitioner was denied an opportunity of hearing. The opportunity was available to him and was, in fact, availed by him on more than one occasion, but the application was thereafter not diligently prosecuted.

There is another important aspect which cannot be overlooked. By the original order dated 08.11.2024, while permitting withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1843/2024, this Court had expressly granted liberty to the petitioner to raise the issue before the learned trial Court at the stage of determination of charge. Consequently, the petitioner was neither denied an opportunity to raise the grounds sought to be urged by him nor left remediless. The order dated 08.11.2024 did not extinguish his substantive right to raise the said issue before the learned trial Court. The liberty granted by the Court specifically preserved his right to urge the grievance at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

The subsequent course of litigation is also relevant. After the original petition was withdrawn, the petitioner first instituted S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.13/2025, which was dismissed as not pressed. He thereafter instituted S.B. Criminal Misc. Application No.436/2025 for substantially seeking recall of the order dated 08.11.2024. That application was taken up on several occasions and the petitioner himself appeared before the Court on two occasions. Yet, after seeking time to file an affidavit, he did not remain present on the subsequent dates and did not prosecute the application.

There is also an aspect of the petitioner's conduct before a coordinate Bench of this Court which deserves to be noticed. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.7173/2021, vide order dated 04.07.2024, the coordinate Bench recorded the submissions made on behalf of the complainant that the petitioner had relied upon a judgment which had subsequently been overruled by a larger Bench and had thereby obtained an interim order. The said order further records the conduct of the petitioner during the hearing and, upon noticing his behaviour and the manner in which he addressed the Court, found the conduct prima facie contumacious and amounting to disregard of the decorum of the Court and obstruction in the administration of justice. The coordinate Bench accordingly issued notice under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act and directed the petitioner to remain personally present.

The aforesaid order is not being noticed as a determination of any allegation made therein beyond what was actually recorded by the coordinate Bench. It is relevant only for the limited purpose of considering the petitioner's conduct in his dealings with the judicial process while examining the present request for exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. The present case, however, has to be decided on its own facts, particularly the repeated failure of the petitioner to prosecute the applications instituted by him despite opportunities having been granted.

There is yet another instance which deserves to be noticed in the context of the conduct of the petitioner. In S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.6820/2023 (Smt. Manju Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), an application was moved by the present petitioner seeking that the matter be listed before a Court other than the Court presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga. The said case was listed before this Court and, though prima facie the Court was of the opinion that the application lacked merit and had no substance, it was felt appropriate to bring the matter to the notice of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, being the master of the roster. When, pursuant to the directions of Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the matter was again listed before this Court on 21.03.2025, this Court, after due consideration, recorded that the petitioner was not a party to the petition and was the father of respondent No.2. The Court found no locus and no force in the application and dismissed the same. Thus, even in a matter in which the petitioner had no locus, the process of this Court was invoked for seeking exclusion of a particular Bench from consideration of the proceedings.

It is noteworthy that despite such conduct, this Court as well as the coordinate Bench have, on the occasions referred to above, exercised considerable restraint. No punitive or final adverse order was passed against the petitioner on account of the said conduct in those proceedings; the matters were dealt with in a restrained manner and were ultimately disposed of in accordance with law. The Court's restraint and magnanimity, however, cannot be understood as permitting the petitioner to repeatedly invoke the judicial process in matters where he has no locus, or to repeatedly seek reopening of proceedings which he himself has failed to prosecute. The aforesaid conduct, taken cumulatively, is not less than that ordinarily associated with a vexatious litigant.

The aforesaid conduct also has to be viewed in the light of the Rajasthan Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 2015, which has been enacted to prevent the institution or continuance of vexatious proceedings, civil and criminal, before the High Court and the courts subordinate thereto. Section 2 of the Act provides a statutory mechanism for declaring a person a vexatious litigant where the statutory conditions are satisfied, while Section 7 makes the provisions of the Act additional to the existing law concerning prevention of abuse of the process of law.

This Court is conscious that no formal declaration under Section 2 of the aforesaid Act is being made in the present proceedings, nor is the Court called upon to make any such declaration. The observations made herein are confined to the conduct of the petitioner as borne out from the proceedings noticed above and are relevant only for considering whether any further indulgence should be granted to him in exercise of the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court.

It has also been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that several proceedings have been instituted at the instance of the petitioner and that the number of such proceedings is stated to be more than 50. However, the exact number and particulars of such proceedings are not presently available on record. Therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to record any finding on the said aspect at this stage. The same may be considered, on the basis of appropriate material, if and when any occasion arises for consideration of the matter under the Rajasthan Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 2015.

The power to recall an order is not intended to provide an opportunity for repeated reopening of proceedings merely because the litigant subsequently chooses to question an order which was passed after affording him opportunity. The process of the Court cannot be kept engaged indefinitely where an applicant repeatedly initiates proceedings, obtains opportunities to prosecute them, and thereafter remains absent.

In the present case, the petitioner had already been granted liberty by this Court, while permitting withdrawal of S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1843/2024, to raise the issue before the learned trial Court at the stage of determination of charge. He was, therefore, neither denied an opportunity to raise his grievance nor left remediless. Despite the liberty so granted, he pursued successive proceedings before this Court and, having been afforded repeated opportunities to prosecute the same, failed to do so. The process of the Court cannot be permitted to remain engaged indefinitely in such repeated attempts to reopen proceedings.

The reliance placed upon Firm Jethmal and Sons, therefore, does not assist the petitioner in the facts of the present case. The principle that a party should not be prejudiced by the negligence of counsel cannot be converted into a right of a litigant to repeatedly seek restoration of his own application despite his own failure to appear and prosecute the matter. The facts of the said case are materially different from those of the present case.

It is also significant that the grievance concerning the withdrawal of the original petition is not shown to have resulted in the petitioner being rendered without a remedy. The petitioner, therefore, cannot contend that the withdrawal of the original petition, by itself, resulted in denial of justice or extinguished his opportunity to raise the substantive grounds. The record further shows that the petitioner had sufficient opportunity to place before this Court the material on which he sought recall of the order dated 08.11.2024. He appeared in person, sought time to file an affidavit, and was granted an opportunity to do so, he was supposed to furnish affidavit to the effect that no concession was given by him to his counsel to not press the petition, but he failed to furnish such affidavit. The subsequent non-appearance on successive dates cannot be attributed to denial of hearing by the Court.

In these circumstances, no sufficient ground has been made out for recalling the order dated 04.08.2026. The present application is essentially another attempt to reopen proceedings which the petitioner himself failed to prosecute, notwithstanding the opportunities available to him and the liberty already granted by this Court in the original proceedings.

The conduct of repeatedly seeking reopening of the matter, despite the liberty available before the learned trial Court and despite repeated opportunities to prosecute the subsequent recall application, also warrants an order as to costs. The imposition of costs in the present case is considered necessary to mark the consequence of unnecessary continuation of proceedings and to discourage further misuse of the process of the Court.

Consequently, the present application is dismissed. The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority (RSLSA) within a period of 60 days from today.

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.