ATUL KUMAR AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal writ application is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to send a report from the Institution Record as to how many cases have been filed by the private respondent, Sudhir Prasad, respondent No. 4, against the petitioner and others from 1991 till date alongwith status report and further direction to respondent No. 4 to restrict his hands to engage in vexatious litigations against the petitioner and other persons to save the wastage of court 'svaluable and precious time and also a direction to the A.C.J.M., Barh to prosecute respondent No. 4, Sudhir Prasad, for the offences mentioned in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code and/or any other appropriate direction/commands in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE main questions which have been raised in the writ petition are as follows: - (i) Whether a litigant has unrestricted hands to waste the Court 'svaluable and precious time by filing cases for the same cause of action repeatedly? (ii) Whether the filing of repeated criminal and civil cases for same cause of action against a person is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India? (iii) Whether the Constitution of India gives guarantee to a citizen that he/she shall not be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once? (iv) Whether the action of respondent No. 4 amounts to offence of fabricating evidence and liable for punishment under Chapter XI of the I.P.C.? (v) Whether the conduct of respondent No. 4 is to be deprecated and to be declared as misuse of justice? It has been submitted that the private respondent is a shrewd litigant and is in habit of filing vexatious litigations either by way of complaint petition in the court or by lodging F.I.R. on totally false allegations, misusing the process of justice by filing misconceived and frivolous petition/cases against the petitioner, his family members, revenue authorities, survey authorities and also other co -villagers. Respondent No. 4 has filed as many as six complaint cases for the same cause of action against the petitioner; his family members using almost same set of witnesses. Besides this, he has also filed as many as more than eight complaint cases against different persons to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner. He has also filed several revenue cases and title suit for the one and same relief against the petitioner and his family members. The details of the cases instituted by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner and others have been given in the writ petition. Respondent No. 4 filed a Complaint Case No. 403C/02 on 12.10.2002 against the petitioner and others in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Barh alleging forgery in four sale deeds dated 15.7.1912, 6.4.1929, 2.1.1917 and 10.1.1948. He prolonged with that case for four years and ultimately the said Complaint Case was dismissed at the enquiry stage on 13.2.2006. Respondent No. 4 filed second complaint case in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh on 26.10.2002 being Complaint Case No. 419 C of 2002 against the petitioner for the same above mentioned allegation of forgery in the above sale deeds. The above complaint case is still pending. The third case filed by respondent No. 4 before the A.C.J.M., Barh in Complaint Case No. 328C of 2003 on 11.9.2003 against the co -sharer of the petitioner on same false allegation of forgery in the sale deeds. This case was dismissed on 18.9.2003. The fourth case filed by respondent No. 4 is Complaint Case No. 339C/03 on 20.9.2003 before the A.C.J.M., Barh against the above mentioned co -sharer with the same allegation of forgery in title documents. However, this case was dismissed on same day with observation that no criminal liability can be fixed.

(3.) IT has been submitted that after four months of the aforesaid dismissal, when the Presiding Officer was transferred, he filed Complaint Case No. 44C of 2004 against the aforesaid co -sharer and also against the petitioner. This case was filed on 19.2.2004 and the new Presiding Officer without knowing the previous history has referred the complaint petition under Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. to Police for institution of F.I.R. and investigation. However, the police on verifying the record and during the investigation, it was found that for similar allegations above referred Complaint Case 328C was earlier filed by the same complainant (respondent No. 4) which stood dismissed by the Court. The Police has also reported that the matter relates to civil dispute relating to land and the complainant has tried to implicate falsely.