HC imposes Rs 50000 costs on petitioner for repeated petitions

HC imposes Rs 50000 costs on petitioner for repeated petitions
File photo of J&K High CourtMubashir Khan/ GK

Srinagar: The High Court of J&K and Ladakh has imposed costs of Rs 50000 on a man for grossly abusing the process of law by filing repeated petitions.

“The petitioner has grossly misused and abused the process of courts. A dishonest litigant like the petitioner cannot be shown any leniency by the Courts and such elements cannot be allowed to abuse the process of Courts. Such trends need to be arrested and put down with an iron fist so that trust of the genuine litigants in the institution is maintained,” said a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar and imposed Rs 50000 “exemplary costs” on a petitioner Ishtiyaq Ahmad Khan.

The Court ordered that the costs be deposited with its registry within one month.

“The petitioner through attorney holder (Wahid Ahmad Khan) has grossly abused the process of law by filing the instant petition as

previously he had filed a petition under Section 561-A of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure impugning the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by Judicial learned Magistrate, 1st Class, Charar-i-Sharief,” Court said.

“The petition was dismissed by this Court by a reasoned order dated 4th October, 2018. The petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings, it appears, invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sessions Court, Budgam, without even disclosing that he had already approached the High Court by way of petition under Section 561-A of J&K Cr. P. C,” court said.

“The Sessions Judge declined to interfere with the order of the trial Magistrate. The petitioner by filing the instant petition has tried to test his luck once again. This is sheer abuse of the process of court.”

In the instant case, the court said, when the Sessions Judge refused to interfere with the order of the Magistrate, the High Court’s jurisdiction has been invoked by the petitioner to avoid the order of the Magistrate and not that of the Sessions Judge.

“The bar of Section 435(3) of the Cr. P. C is, therefore, effectively attracted and the bar cannot be circumvented by subterfuge of treating the revision petition as directed against the Sessions Judge’s order,” the court said and underscored that the consequences of the tactics that the petitioner has adopted in this case would have led to passing of conflicting and contradictory orders by different courts or even by the same court.

“Had the Sessions Judge interfered with the order of the trial Magistrate in ignorance of the order passed by the High Court in the petition under Section 561-A No.42/2017, a peculiar situation would have arisen where order of the Sessions Judge and that of this Court would have come into conflict with each other,” the court said, adding, “Petitioner has not stopped here. He has filed the instant petition impugning order of the Sessions Judge as well as learned Magistrate without disclosing that he had earlier filed a petition under Section 516-A of J&K Cr. P. C before this Court.”

Had the counsel for the respondent not brought the order dated 4th October, 2018 passed by this Court to the notice of this court, the bench said there could have been a possibility of passing of two conflicting orders on the same matter by two Coordinate Benches of the High Court.

The facts which emanate in the present case, the court said, show the level to which “unscrupulous litigants, of which petitioner appears to be a classic example, can stoop to get the desired results.”

Greater Kashmir
www.greaterkashmir.com