- (1.) THESE four connected 482 Cr.P.C. Application Nos. 7975 of 2003,constable Raghuveer Singh Yadav Vs. State and others, 3039 of 2003 Gurdeep Singh and others Vs. State and others, 4002 of 2003, Natthoo Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. And others and 8366 of 2003 Raghuveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another, second 482 Cr.P.C. application filed by same constable Raghuveer Singh Yadav who is also applicant in 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 7975 of 2003 through the same counsel, without disclosing fact of filing of an earlier Application for the same relief, have been filed with the prayer to quash the proceedings as well as FIR of crime no. 262 of 1987, under sections 364, 302 I.P.C., P.S. Tundla, District Firozabad. Ancillary prayer is for stay of arrest of the applicants in pursuance of FIR of the aforesaid crime.
(2.) IN the revised call, none is present for the applicants to argue all the connected 482 Cr.P.C. Applications. Learned AGA is present for the State. More than a decade have gone by. These 482 Cr.P.C. Applications cannot be kept pending in the dockets of this Court without being finally disposed of for an indefinite period and, therefore, with the help of learned AGA, I have gone through the records. All the connected 482 Cr.P.C. Applications are being disposed of by this common order. Perusal of records of 482 Cr.P.C. Application Nos. 7975 of 2003, and 8366 of 2003, both filed by same applicant constable Raghuveer Singh Yadav, with identical prayer revealed that at the initial stage of admission on 22.9.2003, Application 7975 of 2003 was not argued for admission and at the request by counsel for the applicant, it was placed for the next date. Subsequently, on the following date 23.10.2003 also in the revised list, no counsel appeared to argue it and hence said Application was directed to be listed in due course. During pendency of this Application, same applicant through the same counsel, filed another connected 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 8366 of 2003, with the same prayer as has been made in earlier 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 7975 of 2003. It is pertinent to mention that 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 7975 of 2003 was filed on 20.9.2003 while this second 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 8366 of 2003 was filed on 30.9.2003 just after ten days of the first 482 Cr.P.C. Application by the same applicant through the same counsel. It is thus apparent that applicant constable Raghuveer Singh Yadav has indulged into most insalubrious practice through his counsel. Conduct of the applicant is most deplorable. He has filed two successive applications with the same prayer at an interval of ten days and in the later 482 Cr.P.C. Application, it has not been disclosed at all that any other earlier 482 Cr.P.C. Application was filed on behalf of the applicant at any earlier point of time. In view of aforesaid, both the 482 Cr.P.C. Application Nos. 7975 of 2003 and 8366 of 2003 both titled as constable Raghuveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. deserves to be dismissed for prevarication suppresio falsi and for smudging the pious procedure of law in this Court. A cost of Rs. 25,000/ - is imposed on constable Raghuveer Singh Yadav to be realized by C.J.M., Firozabad as arrears of land revenue or has been provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
(3.) IN view of aforesaid, although there is no need to enter into the merits of the dispute but since there are two other connected Applications being 482 Cr.P.C. Application Nos. 4002 of 2003, Natthoo Khan and others Vs. State of U.P. and 3039 of 2003 Gurdeep Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others that mentioning of the facts and considering all the Applications on merits becomes desirable and imperative.;