Honble SINGH, J. – Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor and perused the record of the criminal case no. 199/81 State vs. Ismile and Others.

(2). By this petition, the petitioners have prayed that the trial of criminal case no. 199/81 State vs. Ismile pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Makarana be quashed, because of inordinate delay in completing the trial. A perusal of the record of lower court shows that challan was filed on 23rd July, 81 alleging the commission of offences punishable u/Ss. 147, 148, 149, 325 and 323 IPC. Charges were framed on 8.1.88. The delay in framing of the charge was partly on account of non- appearance of some of the accused and the filing of a revision petition by the accused in the court of Sessions. After framing the charge, efforts were made to summon the witnesses, but because of non-appearance of the witnesses, the case had adjourned from time to time. On 21st September, 93, the witnesses, who appeared before the court stated that they did not know the accused persons by name and that they could identify them in the court. The court, therefore, directed the accused-persons to remain present on the next date of hearing. In place of complying with the directions of the court, the accused persons filed S.B. Cri. Misc. Petition No. 615/93 against the order of the trial Magistrate. That revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 5.4.96. It is therefore, obvious that the petition was any merit. After the dismissal of the petition, the trial Magistrate issued notices to the petitioners, but the petitioners have not cared to appear in the trial Court and instead filed this petition u/S. 481 Cr.P.C.

(3). In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is obvious that the accused petitioners have repeatedly tried at least on two occasions to avoid the proceedings which are pending in the trial court. They had thus, contributed to the delay in dis- posal of the case and have again tried to delay the proceedings by filing this petition u/S. 482 Cr.P.C. This act on the part of the accused petitioners does amount to abuse of the process of the Court. This petition deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected, and it is made clear that if such frivolous petitions are again filed by the accused-persons with a view to avoid the proceedings, which are pending before the court, a serious notice shall be taken and appropriate action may be initiated for the eradication of the evil of filing frivolous petitions with a view to delay the disposal of the case.

(4). For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is hereby dismissed.

(5). In order the accused may not indulge in repeated exercises calculated to delay the trial of the case by abusing the process of the Court, it is necessary that exemplary cost should be imposed on them. Adoption of such a course is legally permissible in exercise of the inherent powers of this Court u/S. 482 Cr.P.C.

(6). In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. vs. N. Raju Raddiar & anr. (1), an application seeking clarification of the order was filed after rejection of the petition for review. The Honble Supreme Court not only rejected that application, but impo- sed cost and observed :–

``It is salutary to note that court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as to routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. xxx ....xxx .....xxx

Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the advocate-on-record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions shou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document