Repetitive and unnecessary litigations will attract fines: Punjab & Haryana High Court

 on 25 01 CRM M 43025 2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH . CRM M 43025 2020 Date of Decision:12.01.2021 Mrs. Vijay Lata …..Petitioner Versus Sh. Rajiv Arora …..Respondent CORAM: HON BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN Present: Mrs. Vijay Lata petitioner in person. ALKA SARIN J. This is a petition under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for granting sanction to initiate criminal proceedings against the respondent for the offence of knowingly filing a false affidavitin CWP. No.19893 cheating forgery and defamation and for directing the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kurukshetra for further proceeding in Criminal Complaint No.2303. The facts of the case disclose how the criminal justice system is being clogged with unnecessary litigation and how the Courts are being burdened with cases which have already attained finality even during trying times. The petitioner has approached this Court for the fifth time for seeking the same relief under the same provisions of law by cleverly re wording some portions of her petition. She has been unsuccessful on the earlier four occasions. on 25 01 CRM M 43025 2020 2 The facts have been culled out from the order dated 16.03.2020passed by this Court in CRM M 10355 2020. The present petition itself is vaguely worded and the petitioner has for reasons best known to her concealed several orders passed by this Court as well as the civil court. The petitioner had challenged her discontinuation termination as a Lecturer in Kurukshetra University by filing CWP No.19893 in this Court. The respondent who was Registrar of Kurukshetra University filed a written statement in the said CWP No.19893. Vide order dated 19.03.1993CWP No.19893 was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court. The petitioner filed an application praying for recalling the order dated 19.03.1993 but the said application was dismissed on 02.04.1993her SLP was dismissed. These proceedings have thus attained finality. The petitioner thereafter filed Civil Suit No.1894 seeking a decree of declaration and a consequential decree of mandatory injunction to the effect that her services should not have been terminated and that she be reinstated challenging therein also the appointment of one Naresh Kumar in her place. That civil suit was dismissed and the appeal against the said dismissal was withdrawn on 19.12.1997 with permission to file a fresh civil suit. The subsequent fresh civil suit was also dismissed and the appeal filed against the judgement and decree of the Trial Court was dismissed on 14.05.2002. The judgements and decrees passed by the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have not been attached with the present petition. on 25 01 CRM M 43025 2020 3 Having been unsuccessful in the proceedings initiated by her on the civil side the petitioner then set in motion a series of proceedings on the criminal side. In 2003 the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 340 CrPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kurukshetra against the respondent and others where she averred that the accused had made false averments in CWP No.19893 because of which her said writ petition was dismissed. Vide order dated 26.05.2007this complaint was dismissed inter alia on the ground that since the reply which the petitioner alleged to be false had been filed before the High Court the Chief Judicial Magistrate Kurukshetra could not take cognizance of the offence under Section 195 CrPC. The petitioner filed an appealagainst that order which appeal was withdrawn on 26.03.2008. The order dated 26.03.2008 passed by this Court has not been attached with the present petition. Infact the present petition is completely silent regarding the filing and fate of CRA S 1376 SB 2007. The petitioner then filedthe first petition in this Court beingCriminal Miscellaneous No.M 468407 in CWP No.19893 under Section 340 CrPC with a prayer that the respondents be tried convicted and sentenced for filing wilfully a false affidavit in CWP No.19893. This petition was dismissed on 27.09.2010. The order dated 27.09.2010 passed by this Court has not been attached with the present petition. Infact the present petition is again completely silent regarding the filing and fate of Criminal Miscellaneous No.M 468407 in CWP No.19893. On 30.10.2010 the petitioner filed the second petition in this Court being CRM M 32437 2010 under Section 340 read with 482 CrPCfor granting sanction for prosecution of the respondents for offences under Sections 193 on 25 01 CRM M 43025 2020 4 204 420 468 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC. The present respondent was arrayed as respondent No.2 in this petition. This petition was dismissed on 12.07.2011. The order dated 12.07.2011 passed by this Court has not been attached with the present petition. Infact the present petition is again completely silent regarding the filing and fate of CRM M 32437 2010. The order dated 12.07.2011 is available on the High Court website and inter alia reads as under : “It may be added that prima facie the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 in the writ petition cannot be said to be false because the resolution of the University was produced in the writ petition and the same was perused by this Court and it was thereafter that the writ petition was dismissed. Petitioner even approached the Hon ble Apex Court in that case but petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by Hon ble Supreme Court. Consequently it cannot be said that any offence as alleged by the petitioner was prima facie committed by the respondents by filing the aforesaid affidavit in the writ petition. For the reasons aforesaid I find no merit in the instant petition which is completely misconceived. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is advised to desist from generating such unnecessary litigation”. On 21.03.2017 the petitioner filed a complaint in the Court of the Special Judge appointed under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled TribesAct 1989alleging therein that despite the Executive Council of the Kurukshetra University having approved in its meeting held on 25.01.1991 that she be appointed as a Lecturer in the Department of on 25 01 CRM M 43025 2020 5 Psychology her services had been terminated intentionally and dishonestly by violating the rules of Kurukshetra University without giving any notice to her and therefore since she belongs to a scheduled caste an offence punishable under the said provisions had been committed. This complaint was dismissed on 07.08.2018. The order dated 07.08.2018 passed by the Court has not been attached with the present petition. Infact the present petition is again completely silent regarding the filing and fate of the complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled TribesAct 1989. On 31.10.2018 the petitioner filed the third petition in this Court being CRM M 48956 2018 under Section 340 CrPCseeking that “charges for knowingly filing false affidavitin CWP No.19893that the report on her poor performance was deliberately obtained only so that her services would not be regularized yet the writ petition itself having been dismissed with the SLP filed against that order on 25 01 CRM M 43025 2020 6 also having been dismissed and her grievance as regards any false written statement affidavit etc. having been dismissed upon her invoking jurisdiction under Section 340 of the CrPC twice earlier too this petition is held to be not maintainable before this court and is consequently dismissed. No costs are being imposed upon the petitioner simply keeping in view the fact that she has appeared in person and is obviously harassing herself also enough time and again”. On 05.03.2020 the petitioner filed the fourth petition in this Court being CRM M 10355 2020 under Section 340 CrPC praying that “charges for knowingly filing false affidavitin CWP No.19893in CWP No.19893and the order passed therein in para 14 of the present petition it is averred “An earlier petitionNo.103520 under Section 340 read with 195(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court on dated 16.03.2020 due to technical defect of legal procedure2 SCC 42] the Supreme Court observed that “Ordinarily the issues which had been canvassed earlier would not be permitted to be reagitated on the same grounds as the same would lead to a speculation and uncertainty in the administration of justice and may lead to forum hunting”. Four Coordinate Benches of this Court have found that no inquiry under Section 340 CrPC is called for in relation to the written statement filed in CWP No.19893 and this Court does not find any material on record to permit the petitioner to reagitate this issue. The present petition is on identical on 25 01 CRM M 43025 2020 9 facts and the core of the present petition as well as the earlier petitions is identical. Apart from the averments made in the present petition and the earlier petitions even Annexures P 1 to P 24 attached with the present petition are also attached as Annexures P 1 to P 24 in the earlier petitions being CRM M 48956 2018 and CRM M 10355 2020 whose paperbooks have been accessed on the website of the High Court. Thus this Court finds no justifiable reason to entertain the present petition. Further the petitioner has concealed from this Court several orders passed by this Court as well as other Courts. She has not come to Court with clean hands. It is well settled that litigants who with an intent to deceive and mislead the Courts initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts such litigantshave come with unclean hands and are not entitled to relief. In ‘Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh &Ors.’2 SCC 114] the Supreme Court observed that: “In the last 40 years a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants the courts have from time to time evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief interim or final”. Even the averment by the petitioner that her earlier CRM M 10355 2020 was dismissed due to a technical defect of legal procedure due to wrong prayer as per Section 195 of CrPC is also incorrect and false. 1 on 25 01 CRM M 43025 2020 10 In view the discussion above the present petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed with costs. Costs are being imposed since precious judicial time during the Covid 19 Pandemic has been wasted on an issue which already stands decided against the petitioner on four earlier occasions. Costs of Rs.25 000 be deposited with the ‘Haryana Corona Relief Fund’. 12.01.2021 JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking non speaking: Speaking Whether reportable: YES NO 

Summary: Filing similar petitions repeatedly with alterations for a favorable outcome will not be exercised and would attract fines and punishment for wasting the judicial time amid the pandemic. Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court gave the decision in the case of Vijay Lata vs. Rajiv Arora [CRM-M-43025-2020] presided over by the single bench of Hon’ble Justice Alka Sarin. In the above-cited case, the appellant approached the court for the fifth time for seeking the same relief under the same provisions of law by cleverly re-wording some portions of her petition. Court noted that the present petition was vaguely drafted and the petitioner tried to conceal all the previous orders passed by the Trials courts or the other High courts. It was observed that Petitioner was expelled from Kurukshetra University from the designation of a lecturer and therefore, she challenged her termination by filing CWP No.1986 of 1993 in the trial court, which eventually got dismissed. The petitioner again filed a petition for recalling the order, which again got dismissed. Petitioner then decided to move to the Supreme Court and challenged both the dismissed orders. But her SLP was again dismissed by the Supreme Court. The petitioner thereafter filed Civil Suit No.186 of 1994 seeking a decree of declaration and a consequential decree of the mandatory injunction to the effect that her services should not have been terminated and that she should be reinstated, challenging therein also the appointment of Naresh Kumar in her place. The HC bench observed that none of the previously passed judgments or decrees were attached to the present petition. And when she couldn’t be successful on the civil side, the petitioner then set in motion a series of proceedings on the criminal side. Appeals were made u/s 340 CrPC on 17-12-20.  HC stated, “A perusal of the above-narrated facts would make it clear that the petitioner has already unsuccessfully knocked on the doors of this Court several times by invoking the provisions of Section 340 CrPC”. Later HC contended that “The present proceedings must be labeled as nothing more than an abuse of the process of the Court particularly in view of the fact that with respect to the same subject-matter several similar petitions had already been filed by the petitioner against this very respondent which were all dismissed. The earlier orders passed by this Court declining any relief to the petitioner in her petitions filed under Section 340 CrPC still hold good and have not been set aside by the Supreme Court”. Referring to the previous judgments in the case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar vs. Rajesh Ranjan [(2005) 2 SCC 42] HC noted that there was no justifiable reason to entertain the present petition. The court said that because the petitioner had concealed all the past orders in the present petition, she didn’t come to court with clean hands. HC contended that “It is well settled that litigants who, with an intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiate proceedings without full disclosure of facts, such litigants have come with unclean hands and are not entitled to relief”. And hence, the HC bench decided to dismiss the petition of the woman with a fine of Rs 25000/- because she moved to the High Court and Subordinate Courts repeatedly in several rounds of litigation for the same matter.