Srinagar, Dec 29: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Tuesday held that if an application of revision has been made by any person, either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by either of them.
The court held that if a person has invoked the revisional jurisdiction of a Sessions Judge against an order of Magistrate, he cannot file second revision against the said order before the High Court and vice versa.
"Sub-section (3) of Section 435 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, clearly bars a second revision petition," the court of Justice Sanjay Dhar held.
The court said this in a Criminal Revision plea whereby the petitioner, Ishtiyaq Ahmad Khan, had filed back to back revision petitions before the Principal Sessions Judge, Budgam and the High Court against an order passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Cherar-i-Sharief on February 15, 2017 which was already dismissed by the High Court on October, 04, 2018.
Earlier, the trial Magistrate on February, 15, 2017 while dismissing the application of Khan for setting aside exparte order of maintenance as also the application for staying the operation of aforesaid exparte order passed in proceedings under Section 488 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, had imposed compensatory costs of Rs.30,000 upon the petitioner.
The trial Magistrate had also directed the petitioner to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs.5000 to the respondent (wife of petitioner).
Justice Dhar after perusing the material on record noted that what comes to the fore is that the petitioner 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 passed by Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Cherar-i-Sharief.
The court pointed out that the said petition was dismissed by this court by a reasoned order passed on October, 04, 2018.
"The petitioner during the pendency of the aforesaid 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," Justice Dhar pointed out.
It further pointed out that 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 process of court," the court said.
It recorded 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.
Justice Dhar further noted that the petitioner has not stopped here. He has filed the instant petition impugning order of the Sessions Judge as well as trial Magistrate without disclosing that he had earlier filed a petition under Section 516-A of J&K Cr. P. C before this court.
The court pointed out that there could have been a possibility of passing of two conflicting orders on the same matter by two Coordinate Benches of the High Court if the order passed by this court on October, 04, 2018 was not brought to the notice of this court.
"The facts which emanate in the present case, show the level to which unscrupulous litigants, of which petitioner appears to be a classic example, can stoop to get the desired results," the court said.
While coming down heavily on the petitioner, the court said that the petitioner has grossly misused and abused the process of courts.
The court held that 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," Justice Dhar said.
While dismissing the revision petition of Khan, the court imposed exemplary costs of Rs.50,000 upon him, for misusing the process of court and misleading it.
The court directed the petitioner to deposit the said amount with the Registrar Judicial of this Court within a period of one month from today.
"Upon deposit of the costs by the petitioner, the same shall be paid to the respondent (wife of the petitioner) after proper verification and identification.
The Registrar Judicial was directed to furnish a report about the deposition of costs by the petitioner and payment thereof to the respondent after one month.