IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No. 1248 of 1988 Date of decision: May 20, 2008 Madanlal Bhasin Rana … Petitioner Versus Surjeet Mehta and others … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: None. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. About 45 cases preferred by Mr.Madan Lal Bhasin Rana have been listed on the board of this Court, in the regular list, they are at seriatim No. 614, 615, 616, 617, 618, 619, 620, 621, 622, 636 and 640. Few of them have been disposed off. A lot of energy of the Court was wasted for effecting service upon Mr.M.B.Rana. An impression has been gathered, rightly or wrongly, that Mr.M.B.Rana was evading service. On one day, when the case was called, a member of the Bar informed that Mr.M.B.Rana is also facing proceedings in a criminal contempt before this Court, which made this Court to requisition the file of criminal contempt. Accordingly, from the office, file of criminal contempt No. 49 of 1998 was called. With the contempt, civil writ petition No. 5258 of 1993 is also listed. File of criminal contempt No. 6 of 1985 has also been tagged with these cases. I have perused these files. In Criminal Misc. No. 27979 of 1998 in Criminal Contempt of Court Petition No. 38 of 1998, a Single Bench of this Court (S.C.Malte, J., as His Lordship then was) passed the following order: “(7) This is a unique case in which I find that matter deserves to be considered for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner. In the present petition the petitioner has Criminal Revision No.1248 of 1988 made disparaging observation against Hon'ble Mr.Justice R.L.Anand. Para 6, 7 and last two prayers in the prayer clause, in this petition are enough to initiate proceedings under the contempt of courts Act against him. I further find from the record of criminal contempt petition No.3 of 1997 that the petitioner has been in the past convicted by the Division Bench of this Court but was let off on a lenient view in Criminal Original Contempt Petition No.6 of 1985 decided on 3.3.1987. The record of Criminal Contempt Petition No.3 of 1997 has been summoned by this Court on the request made by the petitioner himself. On perusal of the order dated 30.7.1998 passed by the present respondent, I find that the contempt case has arisen out of CWP No. 7356 of 1995 in which the following order was passed:- ‘The complainants or Civil Suits filed by the respondent No.7, his son or any other member of his family pending in the Courts throughout Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh shall remain stayed till further orders. Copy of the order be supplied Dasti to the petitioner on usual costs.’ (8) Such order in CWP No. 7356 of 1995 had been passed on the grievance by in all six persons that the present petitioner (who has shown as respondent No.7 in that Writ Petition) is in habit of initiating frivolous and fictitious complaints against various persons. In the set of circumstances, notice be issued to the petitioner to show cause why proceedings for contempt of Court be not initiated against him. For this purpose, this case be put up before an appropriate Bench after obtaining orders from the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.” A perusal of CWP No. 5258 of 1993 reveals that a Full Court meeting of this Court held on 26.02.1993, passed the following resolution: “13. The matter regarding complaint dated 20.5.1992 of Shri K.K.Sharma, Office Secretary, National News and Feature Service, against Shri M.B.Rana, Journalist of Yamunanagar-Report dated nil of District Judge (Vigilance), 2 Criminal Revision No.1248 of 1988 Punjab was considered along with the note of the Registrar and it was decided that it be taken up on the judicial side.” It has been also mentioned in the writ petition that the District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Punjab, in his report, has suggested as under: “a) all the cases filed by Mr.Rana, pending in various Courts of Punjab, Haryana and U.T. of Chandigarh be called and examined so as to quash the proceedings therein being abuse of process of law; b) to issue fresh notices of contempt to Sh.Rana for his having abused the judicial system by filing false and frivolous complaints; and c) thereafter the matter with regard to issuance of injunction restraining Mr.Rana from initiating such frivolous proceedings in any Court in future, may also be considered.“ The complaint of Mr.K.K.Sharma, which was ordered to be dealt with on judicial side by Full Court meeting of this Court, contained following averments against Mr.M.B.Rana: “It is humbly submitted that Mr.Madan Lal Bhasin is mis- using Judicial system by getting issued summons from the Court of Shri Hukam Chand, PCS, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Ludhiana. Respectable citizens and often, their wives also are framed into false cases. Summons so arranged by Mr.Madan Lal Bhasin generate a lot of worry and harassment for persons receiving the same. Thereafter, Mr.Madan Lal Bhasin withdraws cases, provided he is paid amounts between Rs.2,000/- to Rs.5,000/- per person involved in such cases. This has been going on for quite some time now, hundreds of persons from Yamunanagar have received summons issued by the Court of Judge Shri Hukam Chand. Involvement of some senior persons from the Judiciary cannot be ruled out. Otherwise, how Mr.Bhasin can manage to get away with his evil deeds even after the dismissal of 574 such 3 Criminal Revision No.1248 of 1988 cases by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Year 1985. Photostat of the cutting of the Tribune, dated 15th May, 1985 is being attached herewith.” Photostat newspaper report dated 15th May, 1985 states that Mr.M.B.Rana has instituted 363 civil and criminal cases in Ambala district and 206 cases in Kapurthala district. An office note given by District and Sessions Judge (Vigilance) Punjab make interesting reading and same is reproduced below: “Four complaints from different sources were received in this Court against Sh. M.B.Rana of Yamunanagar, alleging the misuse of judicial process by him by getting summons issued from the Court of Sh. Hukam Chand, Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana. It was alleged that respectable citizens and their wives are framed in false cases as a result whereof, lot of worry is generated and harassment caused to the persons receiving the summons. It was further alleged that Sh. Rana thereafter withdraws the cases on receiving amounts ranging from Rs.2000 to Rs.5000 per person involved in such cases. Several persons from Yamunanagar are said to have received summons arising out of such cases filed in the Court of Sh.Hukam Chad. In the complaints it had been thus prayed that appropriate action be taken against Sh.M.B.Rana so as to save the respectable citizens from deep humiliation at the hands of Sh. M.B.Rana who has no respect for the law and abuses its process for the purpose of block mailing. Here it may also be mentioned that at the time of annual inspection of judicial courts at Jagadhari by Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P.Chowdhri, Sh. Rana submitted a complaint against Sh.B.R.Vohra, ADJ, Jagadhri and under the orders of his Lordship, the D&SJ, Ambala was asked to record the statement of Sh. Rana. The D&SJ, Ambala after issuing 4 notices to the complainant, which remained futile, reported that it was not possible to record the statement of Sh.Rana and as such the papers were ordered to be filed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.P.Chowdhri vide order dated 6.7.92. It may be recalled that earlier during the course of inspection of the Ambala Sessions Division by Hon'ble Mr.Justice J.V.Gupta, it came to the notice of his Lordship that 4 Criminal Revision No.1248 of 1988 Sh. M.B.Rana and his son Mahesh Bhasin Rana were in the habit of filing frivolous civil suits and criminal complaints against the public at large including Judicial Officers and members of the Bar. His Lordship recorded a note dated 6.4.85 in this respect. Subsequently, vide orders dated 20.4.85 of Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.V.Gupta, a copy of the judgment dated 1.4.82 passed by a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S.Sandhawalia and Hon'ble Mr.Justice D.D.Tewatia, in Civil Revision No. 2320 of 1980 was forwarded to all the District and Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh with the request to bring the contents of the judgment to the notice of all the Presiding Officers working in their respective Sessions Divisions. Later on, Mr. Justice J.V.Gupta recorded a note dated 9.5.85 that Sh. Rana had filed 574 suits/applications in the different courts in the States of Punjab & Haryana. Thus under the orders of his Lordship, a notice for contempt proceedings for abuse of judicial process was issued to Sh.Rana as he was in the habit of filing frivolous suits and complaints. In Cr. (O) C.P. No. 16 of 1985, Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.S.Dewan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Bhalla vide orders dated 3.3.87 sentenced Mr. Rana to pay a fine of Rs.100/- or in default thereof, to undergo SI for one week. In Cr (O) C.P. No. 6 of 1985 proceedings all the cases filed by Mr. Rana were stayed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.V. Gupta vide orders dated 9.5.85. However, later on, the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.S.Dewan and Mr. Justice K.S.Bhalla vide orders dated 3.3.87 holding Mr. Rana guilty of contempt., let him off, only with a warning and vacated the stay orders on his tendering unqualified apology and having undertaken that he would not pursue those cases. Mr. Rana went in appeal which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide orders dated 10.8.87. Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.P.Chowdhri vide orders dated 30.9.92 at page 13 ante observed that it was a serious matter relating to the misuse of the system of the Courts and something effective was required to be done to put it down with a firm hand. The matter was ordered to be placed before the full Court after preparing a self-contained note. In Snell's Equity, 29th edition, at page 686, para 4 related to the issuance of injunctions in respect of judicial proceedings. It is observed therein that although no proceedings pending in the High Court or Court of Appeal can 5 Criminal Revision No.1248 of 1988 be restrained by an injunction, yet it is possible, in certain cases, to restrain the institution of proceedings. It is also observed that the High Court may restrain a person from prosecuting the vexatious civil or criminal proceedings in inferior courts. Reference in this respect has been made to cases in re: Connolly Bro. Ltd. (1911) 1 Ch 731 and Thames Launches Ltd Vs Trinity House Corporation (1961) Ch 197. The facts of the case go to show that Mr. Rana had been filing a large number of cases, both civil and criminal in various courts in the State of Punjab and Haryana and the fact that he had been abandoning the claim by getting the suit/complaints dismissed in default, speaks volumes against the genuine nature cases. In these circumstances, therefore, if approved: a) all the cases filed by Mr. Rana, pending in various Courts of Punjab, Haryana and U.T of Chandigarh be called and examined so as to quash the proceedings therein being abuse of process of law : b) to issue fresh notices of contempt to Sh. Rana for his having abused the judicial system by filing false and frivolous complaints ; and c) thereafter the matter with regard to issuance of injunction restraining Mr. Rana from initiating such frivolous proceedings in any Court in future, may also be considered. . Sd/- DJV.Pb” In Criminal Court Contempt Petition No. 6 of 1985, on 3rd March, 1987, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.S.Dewan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S.Bhalla, passed the following order: “S.S.Dewan, J. Notice of contempt was issued on the motion of this Court against the alleged contemner i.e. Mr.Madan Lal Bhasin Rana for filing frivolous suits/ applications against so many firms, individuals, Advocates and judicial officer with impunity and thus abused the process of the Court. Mr.Madan Lal Bhasin Rana has appeared in this Court after the receipt of show-cause notice and he has expressed remorse on 6 Criminal Revision No.1248 of 1988 his conduct and placed himself at the mercy of the Court by tendering an unqualified apology and in his reply he gives an undertaking that he would not pursue those causes which are mentioned in Annexures ‘A’ to ‘D’ attached with the record of the case. He has also submitted that he is a poor man and has thrown himself at the mercy of the Court. The act of Mr.Madan Lal Bhasin Rana falls under the purview of Section 2(c) of the contempt of Court Act, as it has interfered with the administration of justice but taking into consideration his apology, we let him of only with a warning and do not sentence him to any substantive punishment. Stay granted vide this Court’s order dated 9.5.1985 is hereby vacated.” In civil revision No. 2320 of 1980, a Single Bench of this Court (D.S.Tiwatia, J. as His Lordship then was) on 3rd August, 1981, passed the following order: “The next point is also some significance in this case. The petitioner has filed a list of over 300 cases that respondent No.5 Shri Madan Lal Bhasin Rana resident of Yamna Nagar has filed in Courts at Jagadhari and all have the cases has similarly been dismissed for non-prosecution which reflects in him atendency of vexatious litigant and the question therefore that arises for consideration is as to whether the Court dealing with the question regarding imposition of special costs could take into consideration the conduct of the respondent in filing large number of forma pauperis applications and in all claiming damages for defamation and getting all of them dismissed for want of prosecution. The papers of this case are directed to be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger bench.” 45 cases, which are on the regular list of this Court, have been filed in year 1988. A period of 20 years is going to elapse. They could not be dealt with because a date has been sought by Mr.M.B.Rana, or adjourned, due to non appearance to pursue the matter. In most of these cases, complaint had been dismissed in default. Thereafter, revision petition preferred has also been dismissed in default. 7 Criminal Revision No.1248 of 1988 Mr.M.B.Rana had filed a complaint against the respondents, which was dismissed by Judicial Magistrate (1st Class), Ambala city and the following order was passed: “Case called several times. Complainant is not present. It is already 12.45 p.m. As such, the complaint is dismissed for want of prosecution.” Thereafter, the learned Judge had ordered that the file be consigned to the record room. A revision petition was preferred against the same by petitioner, Mr.M.B.Rana before Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. The same was dismissed on 22.10.1988 by passing the following order: “Petition called several times. Petitioner is not present inspite of repeated calls. It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in the prosecution of the revision. Hence it is dismissed in default.” On April 29, 2008, this Court passed the following order:- “Office has reported that service has been refused by the petitioner as per the report of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri. The present revision petition was filed by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 22.10.1998 when his revision was dismissed in default and it was recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala as under:- ‘Present: None. Petition called several times. Petitioner is not present in spite of repeated calls. It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in the prosecution of the revision. Hence, it is dismissed in default. Announced. Sd/- D/22.10.1998 Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala.’ Since the petitioner has refused the service, it is deemed to be complete. In grounds of revision, it has been stated that in the similar 8 Criminal Revision No.1248 of 1988 matter, the similar point has been raised before this Court in Criminal Revision No.362 of 1988 in which petitioner was respondent. Office is directed to tag along with this case, the file of Criminal Revision No.362 of 1988. In case the same is not available the final order passed therein be placed along with the present revision petition. Needful be done on 7.5.2008”. In pursuance of the above order, Office has submitted that record of Criminal Revision No.362 of 1988 has been destroyed in the fire incident which occurred in the year, 1999 and same do not figure in the list of salvage cases. In the present case, complaint was filed for offence under Sections 109/ 110/ 210/ 500 and 506 IPC. The trial of offence under Section 500 IPC is to proceed as a summon case as the punishment under Sections 500 and 502 IPC is maximum up to two years. Under Section 2 (w) summons- case means a case relating to an offence, and not being a warrant case and under Section 2(x) warrant-case means a case relating to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. For trial of the summon case, proceeding has been prescribed in Chapter (xx) of Cr.P.C. In case a complaint is dismissed in default under Section 256 Cr.P.C., it shall amount to an acquittal and the same can only be challenged by taking recourse to Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. i.e. by filing an application seeking special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. No such procedure has been adopted by the petitioner. He had preferred a revision before the Sessions Court which had been dismissed in default. In the present case, both complaint and revision had been dismissed in default. Therefore, the present criminal revision petition is not maintainable as remedy is to file application under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. i.e. special leave to appeal against acquittal. Even otherwise, second 9 Criminal Revision No.1248 of 1988 revision is not maintainable as order of dismissal of complaint in default was challenged in a revision before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala. Furthermore, the complaint was filed in the year, 1985. Right of a speedy trial vests upon the accused. This Court will not be inclined to interfere after 23 years. In view of the history given above, Mr.M.B.Rana is a litigant, who has filed numerous cases and it can be safely held that the present case is also an attempt to misuse and abuse the process of criminal administration of justice and therefore, this revision petition is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE May 20, 2008 seema/ rps 10