High Court

1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Rathor, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uma Nath Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the non-bailable warrant dated 24.10.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hamirpur in Case No.356 of 2019, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District Hamirpur pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hamirpur.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned proceeding is absolutely erroneous. It is further submitted that the applicant wants to settle the dispute with opposite party no.2 by paying the cheque amount. It is further requested that the order of non-bailable warrant as well as the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. be stayed during that proceeding and the applicant may be permitted to appear before the court below and apply for bail. Some protection may also be given during that period.

4. However, learned State Law Officer pointed out that earlier the applicant had challenged the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 356 of 2019 along with the impugned non-bailable warrant by filing an Application u/s 482 No. 27130 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023, permitting the applicant to appear before the court below and apply for bail with direction to consider the bail application of the applicant as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922. But order sheet shows that the applicant instead of complying the order dated 03.08.2023, remained absconding. Now after more than two years, he again approached this Court by filing the present application challenging the same which was already challenged in earlier Application u/s 482 No.27130 of 2023.

5. On perusal of order passed in earlier Application U/S 27130 of 2023, it transpires that following prayer was made; "This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned NBW orders dated 23.08.2022 and 03.07.2023 as well as entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.356 of 2019, under Sections,138 of NI Act, 1881, P.S. Kotwali Hamirpur, District Hamirpur."

6. From the above, it is clear that the applicant has filed the present second application u/s 482 Cr.P.C,. for the same prayer, this act of the applicant amounts to abuse of the process of Court as he has been filing repeated applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the same relief and after getting the protection order, did not comply the same and again filed Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the case of Dnyando Sabji Naik and another vs Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and another; 2017 (5) SCC 496 has observed that repeated filing of petitions before the court for the same cause of action, amounts to abuse of process of the court. Para 13 and 14 of Dnyando Sabji Naik and another (supra) case is being quoted as under;

13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth.

14. Courts across the legal system—this Court not being an exception—are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalises such behaviour. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner.

7. On a pointed query of Court to the counsel for the applicant, for the reason to file second petition for the same relief and non- compliance of earlier order passed in earlier application U/S 482 Cr.P.C., he could not justify the same.

8. Therefore, the present application is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- and that amount shall be deposited by the applicant before the court below within a period of one month. On depositing of that amount, the same should be released in favour of opposite party no.2. It is made clear that, in case, the applicant does not deposit the aforesaid cost, the concerned court will send a letter to the concerned District Magistrate to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- as arrears of land revenue and after recovery of aforesaid amount, the District Magistrate will deposit the same before the court below.

9. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the court below. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 A.Kr.

1. Heard Sri Satya Prakash Rathor, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Uma Nath Shukla, learned State Law Officer for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the non-bailable warrant dated 24.10.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hamirpur in Case No.356 of 2019, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Kotwali, District Hamirpur pending in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Hamirpur.

3. Contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned proceeding is absolutely erroneous. It is further submitted that the applicant wants to settle the dispute with opposite party no.2 by paying the cheque amount. It is further requested that the order of non-bailable warrant as well as the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. be stayed during that proceeding and the applicant may be permitted to appear before the court below and apply for bail. Some protection may also be given during that period.

4. However, learned State Law Officer pointed out that earlier the applicant had challenged the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 356 of 2019 along with the impugned non-bailable warrant by filing an Application u/s 482 No. 27130 of 2023, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.08.2023, permitting the applicant to appear before the court below and apply for bail with direction to consider the bail application of the applicant as per the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another, 2021 SCC Online SC 922. But order sheet shows that the applicant instead of complying the order dated 03.08.2023, remained absconding. Now after more than two years, he again approached this Court by filing the present application challenging the same which was already challenged in earlier Application u/s 482 No.27130 of 2023.

5. On perusal of order passed in earlier Application U/S 27130 of 2023, it transpires that following prayer was made; "This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned NBW orders dated 23.08.2022 and 03.07.2023 as well as entire proceedings in Complaint Case No.356 of 2019, under Sections,138 of NI Act, 1881, P.S. Kotwali Hamirpur, District Hamirpur."

6. From the above, it is clear that the applicant has filed the present second application u/s 482 Cr.P.C,. for the same prayer, this act of the applicant amounts to abuse of the process of Court as he has been filing repeated applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the same relief and after getting the protection order, did not comply the same and again filed Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. The Apex Court in the case of Dnyando Sabji Naik and another vs Pradnya Prakash Khadekar and another; 2017 (5) SCC 496 has observed that repeated filing of petitions before the court for the same cause of action, amounts to abuse of process of the court. Para 13 and 14 of Dnyando Sabji Naik and another (supra) case is being quoted as under;

13. This Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow. Others should not venture along the same path in the hope or on a misplaced expectation of judicial leniency. Exemplary costs are inevitable, and even necessary, in order to ensure that in litigation, as in the law which is practised in our country, there is no premium on the truth.

14. Courts across the legal system—this Court not being an exception—are choked with litigation. Frivolous and groundless filings constitute a serious menace to the administration of justice. They consume time and clog the infrastructure. Productive resources which should be deployed in the handling of genuine causes are dissipated in attending to cases filed only to benefit from delay, by prolonging dead issues and pursuing worthless causes. No litigant can have a vested interest in delay. Unfortunately, as the present case exemplifies, the process of dispensing justice is misused by the unscrupulous to the detriment of the legitimate. The present case is an illustration of how a simple issue has occupied the time of the courts and of how successive applications have been filed to prolong the inevitable. The person in whose favour the balance of justice lies has in the process been left in the lurch by repeated attempts to revive a stale issue. This tendency can be curbed only if courts across the system adopt an institutional approach which penalises such behaviour. Liberal access to justice does not mean access to chaos and indiscipline. A strong message must be conveyed that courts of justice will not be allowed to be disrupted by litigative strategies designed to profit from the delays of the law. Unless remedial action is taken by all courts here and now our society will breed a legal culture based on evasion instead of abidance. It is the duty of every court to firmly deal with such situations. The imposition of exemplary costs is a necessary instrument which has to be deployed to weed out, as well as to prevent the filing of frivolous cases. It is only then that the courts can set apart time to resolve genuine causes and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances. Otherwise, the doors would be shut to legitimate causes simply by the weight of undeserving cases which flood the system. Such a situation cannot be allowed to come to pass. Hence it is not merely a matter of discretion but a duty and obligation cast upon all courts to ensure that the legal system is not exploited by those who use the forms of the law to defeat or delay justice. We commend all courts to deal with frivolous filings in the same manner.

7. On a pointed query of Court to the counsel for the applicant, for the reason to file second petition for the same relief and non- compliance of earlier order passed in earlier application U/S 482 Cr.P.C., he could not justify the same.

8. Therefore, the present application is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- and that amount shall be deposited by the applicant before the court below within a period of one month. On depositing of that amount, the same should be released in favour of opposite party no.2. It is made clear that, in case, the applicant does not deposit the aforesaid cost, the concerned court will send a letter to the concerned District Magistrate to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- as arrears of land revenue and after recovery of aforesaid amount, the District Magistrate will deposit the same before the court below.

9. Registrar (Compliance) is directed to send a copy of this order to the court below. Order Date :- 6.2.2025 A.Kr.