The main legal point established in the judgment is that repeated piecemeal applications for quashment amount to an abuse of the process of the Court and should not be entertained under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.C.No.9 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, for the perusal of this Court and Quash the Charge Sheet in C.C.No.9 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai.)

Common Order:

These criminal original petitions have been filed seeking quashment of the case in C.C.Nos.3 to 9 of 2013 on the file of the II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai.

2. The background facts in brief:

The facts of the case are narrated in more than one occasion by this Court while dealing with Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.5354 of 2013 batch, which were filed by the K.S.Murugan, who is the petitioner herein in Crl.O.P.( MD).No.15398 of 2022 batch. Similarly, E.Ramesh, who along with 3 other accused persons filed Crl.O.P.(MD).No.7444 of 2015 and batch.

3. This is the second quash petition filed by the above said K.S.Murugan and E.Ramesh, citing different reasons. Since the facts have been clearly narrated in the above said matters, we need not go in detail about the prosecution case. Suffice to say that reference can be made with regard to the prosecution case in the above said matters.

4. At the out set this Court is not in a position to appreciate the attempt that has been made by the petitioners by filing this second quash petitions. When the application was moved by E.Ramesh through his counsel, objection was raised by the Registry as to whether the second quash petition is maintainable. The matter was listed before the Court for deciding the issue and counsel, who is appearing for the above said Ramesh, would submit that even though the ground on which the present petition has been filed also raised in the earlier petition that was not answered by that Court, since no sufficient materials have been placed by this petitioner at that time. On that point subject to the maintainability, the petition was ordered to be processed by the Registry and placed before the Court for final disposal. The matter was taken up for hearing along with other matters that was filed by K.S.Murugan.

5. With regard to the conduct of the K.S.Murugan, also it has to be mentioned that subsequent to the dismissal of the above said petitions Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.5354 of 2013 batch, again he filed W.P.(MD)No.7590 of 2021 etc batch, seeking direction to the Special Court namely II Additional District Court for CBI Cases, Madurai, to expedite the trial process in C.C.No.3 to 9 of 2013 on day to day basis within the time stipulated by this court. That petition was also ordered on 03.09.2021, directing the Special Court to expedite the trial process without unnecessarily adjourning the matter as early as possible and that within a period of 5 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. If any necessity arises, liberty was granted to the trial Judge to seek further period of five months for completing the trial process. That petition was filed on 01.04.2021. The present petitions seeking quashment were filed on 05.08.2022. When this was pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, I made an enquiry with the counsel on record for K.S.Murugan as to whether such a course taken by him is not abuse of the process of the Court. In reply to the above said query, the counsel on record would place a communication that was sent by one of the witnesses to the Court stating that on the particular day, the above said witness about to appear, CBI directed him not to appear before the Court. In the communication he has stated that he received 13 summons from the Court in 18 months. Even though he attended the Court, he was not examined. So according to the counsel, delaying tactics is adopted only by the CBI and not by the accused. Since the trial process is getting delaying, he has filed the present petition.

6. Whatever may be the grievance by the petitioners, but they repeatedly approaching the Court, in