Continuing criminal proceedings based on identical allegations that have been previously discharged constitutes an abuse of process of law.

ORDER :

J.C. DOSHI, J.

1. By way of this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ”the Code”), the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside proceedings of Criminal Inquiry Case No.59 of 1993 culminated into Criminal Case No.5193 of 1993 pending before the learned CJM, Rajkot.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

2.1 The respondent No.2 and his wife Naynaben Sureshbhai Bhatt are the Trustees of the Trust known as "Navnirman Kelavani Mandal" which was running school in the name of "Infant Primary School".

2.2 The petitioner was serving as a teacher in the said school in Gujarati Section. The trustees were paying less salary in cash compared to the amount stated in the salary statement regarding the receipt of the salary. Therefore, a grievance was raised by all the teachers due to which the petitioner apprehended that he would be terminated from service.

2.3 Under the circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to institute Civil Suit No.966 of 1983 on 12/10/1983 before the Civil Court at Rajkot.

2.4 Ultimately, the trustees terminated the services of various teachers including the petitioners by a telegram dated 22/12/1983.

2.5 In view thereof, the petitioner was constrained to file Civil Suit No.1252 of 1983 on 31/12/1983. In the said suit, by an ex-parte order on injunction application, the trustees were restrained from implementing the termination order and to pay the salary.

2.6 That, other teachers also instituted Civil Suit No.98 of 1984 against the said Trust and its trustees. However, the trustees including the complainant herein did not allow the petitioner to carry on its duty as teacher and the trustees and failed to pay any salary to the petitioner and other teachers.

2.7 Subsequently, the trustees filed petition being Writ Petition No.13175 of 1983 before the Honourable Supreme Court for setting aside the amended Rules and Schedule "F" of Bombay Primary Education Rules. The said Rules were stayed by an order dated 28/11/1983. In view of the stay of the Rules, the trustees including the complainant herein raised a contention before the Civil Court in the above suit filed by the petitioner that the suit cannot be entertained as there is no relationship of Master and Servant between the petitioner and trustees.

2.8 In view thereof, an application being Application No.6201 and 6202 as well as 10023 of 1984 were filed before the Honourable Supreme Court to be joined as a party and to vacate or modify the stay and to restrain the trustees from disallowing the petitioner from carrying out the services.

2.9 All these applications were heard on 23/04/1984 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court was pleased to allow the application for joining parties and directed to pay the salary up to 30/04/1984 so that the injunction application before the civil court can be heard as if there is no stay granted by the Honourable Supreme Court against the amended Rules of Bombay Primary Education Rules.

2.10 That, the trust through its Advocate paid salary for the month of June and July 1984 by giving the Cheque on 24/08/1984 to the Advocate of the petitioner which fact is recorded by a pursis dated 24/08/1984 filed before the Civil Court at Exh. 117. Ultimately, the injunction. application was allowed by the civil court by an order dated 30/11/1984.

2.11 The said order was not implemented and the Trustees did not pay any salary to the petitioner from the month of September, 1984. The contempt proceedings were initiated for breach of the order before the Civil Court wherein the Civil Court passed an order for punishment of three months to the complainant as well as his wife Naynaben Bhatt against which proceedings were filed before this Honourable Court wherein apology was accepted by this Honourable Court.

2.12 In the above circumstances, the petitioner was not allowed to continue in service nor was he paid any salary. Therefore, the petitioner had applied for service with District Pri