- (1.) VINOD Prasad, J. Applicant Ajay Khorana has prayed for quashing of summoning order dated 10-1-2007 as well as the charge-sheet dated 16-2-2006 filed in Crime No. 1713 of 2005 for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I. P. C. pending before C. J. M. Basti against him.
(2.) THE necessary facts eschewing the unnecessarily details of the prosecution allegations are that the applicant was married with respondent No. 2 Namita Khorana on 28th September, 1990 at Bhopal. After the marriage respondent No. 2 Namita Khorana was tortured because of demand of dowry and even was assaulted. Respondent No. 2 Namita Khorana was harassed and was turned out of her in-laws house. She lodged a F. I. R. in respect of offences of demand of dowry and torture with police, which was got investigated and ultimately a charge-sheet was laid in the Court against the applicant and his parents, in the aforesaid crime No. 1713 of 2005 for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506, 498-A I. P. C. on 16-2-2006. THE said charge-sheet was registered as case No. 4945 of 2006 in the Court of C. J. M. Basti and the accused persons were summoned. It is this charge-sheet which is being prayed to be quashed. Sri R. N. Pandey and Sri P. N. Pandey have put in their appearance on behalf of the respondents in this case. Counsel for the respondents informed that this is the fourth exercise by the applicant in this Court with the same relief. They pointed out that initially after submission of the charge-sheet when the applicant was not even summoned he filed an application before this Court being Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3808 of 2006, which was dismissed as premature, by this Court on 13-4- 2006. A copy of the said order has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 to this application. Subsequently after the summoning order was passed, applicant Ajay Khorana and others filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8010 of 2007. In the aforesaid case the two Counsels for the respondent wife put in their appearance. After the Counsels put in their appearance the said Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8010 of 2006 was got dismissed by the applicants on 2-5-2007 (Annexure No. 1 ). Subsequently, the said accused persons Ajay Khorana and others filed a third Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9984 of 2007 in which also the respondent wife put in appearance through the aforesaid Counsels and therefore, the applicant again got the third Criminal Miscellaneous application 9984 of 2007 dismissed with liberty to file fresh on 23-5-2007. Both the orders dated 2-5-2007 and 23-5-2007 passed in the aforesaid Criminal Miscellaneous Application Nos. 8010 of 2007 and 9984 of 2007 were passed by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J. Learned Counsel for the applicant, therefore, contended that this fourth application is nothing but a misuse of process of Court and is not maintainable. Learned Counsel for the applicant contrarily contended that since the earlier two applications were got dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a fresh, therefore, this fourth application is, maintainable. On the merits, learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the Court at Basti does not have any territorial jurisdiction to try the accused persons as no cause of action occurred there. He secondly contended that the marriage was solemnized at Bhopal in Madhya Pradesh and the dowry was given there. Therefore, it is only the Courts at Bhopal who can try the accused. He also submitted that since Basti Court did not have any territorial jurisdiction, therefore, in view of the pronouncement of the Apex Court reported in 2004 (8) SCC page 100 that the prosecution be quashed.
(3.) I have considered the submissions raised by both the sides. It is an admitted fact that after the charge-sheet was filed in the Court but before the summoning order was passed the applicant had approached this Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 3808 of 2006, which was dismissed as being premature, since the applicant was not summoned by that dated 13-4-2006. Subsequently after the summoning order was passed on two occasions the applicant approached this Court. Firstly by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 8010 of 2007. In the said application the respondent wife appeared through her Counsels to argue the matter. The applicant then got his said application dismissed with liberty to file a fresh on 2-5-2007. The said exercise was repeated again in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 9984 of 2007 by those very accused persons including the applicant. After the aforesaid two orders were passed by this Court that this fourth exercise is ventured by the applicant by filing the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 12135 of 2007. In view of the aforesaid facts the experimental exercise resorted to by the applicant Ajay Khorana is nothing but an abuse of the process of this Court. His conduct is utterly deplorable. In this application the Counsel is also the same who was the Counsel in the earlier two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications. If the applicant was so confident of the grounds canvassed by him in this application which are not new and different from the grounds taken by him in the earlier two applications, he should have argued his earlier two Criminal Miscellaneous Applications. That having not being done it does not understandable how this fourth application is maintainable as the matter was got dismissed without arguing on merits on the earlier two occasions. The contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that since earlier two applications were got dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh those orders will not operate as res judicata against him. The said contention of learned Counsel for the applicant is not only illegal but indicates malpractice which is being resorted to by unscrupulous litigants. This matter has attain the attention of the Apex Court in a case reported in 2001 (2) JIC 887 (SC) : AIR 2001 SC 3524, Rajindra Prasad v. Bashir and Ors. . In the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court has held as follows :;