LAKSHMI SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint was filed in the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bettiah. He made over the same to another Magistrate under section 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Having found that a prima facie case under sections 323, 504, 379 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code is made out, he directed for issuance of summons to the petitioners. Petitioner filed Cr. Misc. No. 24388 of 1999 (Laxmi Sinha and another V/s. State of Bihar and another) for quashing the prosecution including the order directing for issuance of process. Said application was dismissed for noncompliance of the peremptory order dated 21.12.99. Petitioners thereafter filed application for restoration which was registered as Cr. Misc. No. 7297 of 2000 (Laxmi Sinha and anr. V/s. State of Bihar and Anr.). However, this Court finding absence of sufficient cause by order dated 24.3.2000 declined to restore the application and dismissed the restoration application. Thereafter petitioners have chosen to file the fresh application. The matter came up for consideration earlier on 11.4.2002 when one of us (Prasad, J.) sitting singly observed as follows: ''

(2.) MR . Mani Lal appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that petitioners although came up before this Court for quashing of the prosecution and notices were issued in the case but on account on noncompliance of the peremptory order the application was dismissed and the petitioners though did not succeed in the restoration application, still there being no decision on merit, petitioners ' second application cannot be thrown out only on the ground of dismissal of the earlier application and the restoration application. In support of his submission learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jatinder Singh and others V/s. Ranjit Kaur (AIR 2001 SC 784) and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 12 of the judgment which reads as follows : -

(3.) I do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Mani Lal. True it is that the earlier application filed by the petitioner was dismissed not on merits but on account of non -compliance of the peremptory order. Further the application to restore the same was dismissed on account of the fact that the petitioner was not able to show sufficient cause. Thus this Court did not adjudicate the case on merits and in such a situation the question is not as to whether entertaining another application would amount to review of the order but the question is as to whether such application is fit to be entertained on ground of public policy. I am of the opinion that entertaining second application would not be in the larger interest of administration of justice. It may encourage unhealthy practice and can be used as a device for Bench hunting. The dismissal of the application for restoration because of lack of sufficient cause will have no meaning and unscrupulous litigants may use the same to pollute the stream of justice. In my opinion, wisdom demands and public policy induces me to observe that it shall not be prudent to entertain second application.