WWW.LIVELAW.IN 1

03.02.2017 Item No. 1 Sdas

C.R.R. 4098 of 2016 with C.R.R. 70 of 2017 With C.R.R. 1011 of 2016 with C.R.R. 4295 of 2015 with C.R.R. 3498 of 2016 with C.R.R. 4116 of 2016 with C.R.R. 2105 of 2016 with C.R.R. 4 of 2017 With C.R.R. 3530 of 2016 + CRAN 208 of 2017 with C.R.R. 287 of 2017 Mr. Kamal Kanti Kar, Mr. Gopal Chandra Roy ……. for the petitioners (CRR 70 of 2017, CRR 3498 of 2016, CRR 1011 of 2016 with CRR 4295 of 2015) Mr. Pawan Gupta

……… for the State

CRR 4098 of 2016 Let this matter be delisted from these batch of the matters.

C.R.R. 70 of 2017 With C.R.R. 4295 of 2015 with C.R.R. 3498 of 2016 with C.R.R. 2105 of 2016 with C.R.R. 4 of 2017 with

WWW.LIVELAW.IN 2

C.R.R. 3530 of 2016 + CRAN 208 of 2017 with C.R.R. 287 of 2017

All these matters were listed together as that the petitioners have filed these applications for selfsame relief although similar prayer was already rejected with costs in an earlier proceeding. It appears that the petitioners in CRR 3498 of 2016, CRR 3530 of 2016, CRR 4 of 2017, CRR 70 of 2017, CRR 287 of 2017 and C.R.R. 4295 of 2015 had prayed for transfer of the criminal case from the court of learned Magistrate, Katwa to any other competent court at Kalna or Srirampur. However, in C.R.R. 2105 of 2015, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and that of the State, by order dated 22.11.2016 a learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed such prayer and imposed a cost of Rs.2500/- each which was to be paid by the petitioners to the High Court Legal Services Authority. This Court had also directed for expeditious disposal of the criminal case within a time frame. Instead of paying such costs, the petitioners have sought to resurrect the selfsame prayer in a series of cases being CRR 3498 of 2016, CRR 3530 of 2016, CRR 4 of 2017, CRR 70 of 2017, CRR 287 of 2017 and C.R.R. 4295 of 2015. In these proceedings the petitioners had suppressed the rejection of the selfsame prayer with costs in CRR 2105 of 2016 and on strength of such suppression, they had even procured an order of stay of the proceedings in C.R.R. 3560 of 2016.

WWW.LIVELAW.IN 3

The aforesaid state of affairs compel me to observe that the petitioners appear to have intentionally abused the process of Court by repeatedly filing applications for selfsame relief and by way of suppression have even procured order of stay of trial in the criminal case which, in fact, was directed to be concluded within a time frame by this Court which rejecting the prayer for transfer of the petitioners in C.R.R. 2105 of 2016. Such conduct on the part of the petitioners prima facie amounts to an abuse of process of Court and a perverted attempt to procure the self-same relief on the basis of gross suppression of material facts. The petitioners being confronted with the revealation of their dubious design, as aforesaid, presently seek to withdraw the aforesaid applications. In view of the concerted and repeated efforts of the petitioners to subvert the process of law by filing multiple applications I refuse to permit the petitioners to withdraw the said proceedings inasmuch as there is every possibility that they would thereafter suppress this order and resort to the selfsame practice of instituting further frivolous litigation on the selfsame issue. It has been held by this Court in Hastings Mills Ltd. Vs. Hira Singh, 1978 CHN 64 as well as the Apex Court in Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction, (1995) 3 SCC 507 that successive

filing

of

vexatious

proceedings

to

subvert

the

administration of justice amounts to criminal contempt. I am constrained to observe that the petitioners appear to have indulged in such effort by intentionally instituting frivolous proceedings, as aforesaid, for selfsame relief by suppressing

WWW.LIVELAW.IN 4

rejection of same prayer with costs and direction for expeditious disposal of the criminal case in CRR 2105 of 2016. That apart, on the strength of such suppression they had even procured an order of stay of the proceeding in CRR 3530 of 2016.

Hence, I am of

the prima facie view that the action of the petitioners is contemptuous as the aforesaid proceedings were maliciously instituted to abuse the process of Court and obstruct the administration of justice in this case.

In view of the aforesaid

conduct on the part of the petitioners in seeking to circumvent the order passed by this Court in CRR 3530 of 2016 and obstruct the administration

of

justice

by

filing

repeated,

frivolous

and

vexatious proceedings by way of gross suppression of material facts, I issue a rule of contempt upon them returnable two weeks hence, that is on 17.2.2017, to show cause as to why they should not be held guilty of criminal contempt and be punished accordingly. In view of aforesaid facts, CRR 3498 of 2016, CRR 3530 of 2016, CRR 4 of 2017, CRR 70 of 2017, CRR 287 of 2017 and C.R.R. 4295 of 2015 are summarily dismissed as frivolous and vexatious in nature and being an abuse of the process of Court. I am also constrained to observe that in most of these applications the petitioners have been represented by the selfsame Counsel, namely, Mr. Kamal Kanti Kar. It is a matter of utmost concern that the same Counsel, Mr. Kamal Kanti Kar had repeatedly instituted these proceedings seeking selfsame relief although he had represented his client in CRR 2105 of 2016 wherein such prayer had been turned down by this Court. Such

WWW.LIVELAW.IN 5

conduct, on the part of the Counsel, is in utter disregard to the high ideals of the legal profession and prima facie tantamounts to professional misconduct punishable under Section 35 of the Advocates’ Act. Under such circumstances, I refer the matter to the Bar Council of West Bengal for initiating appropriate disciplinary proceeding against the aforesaid lawyer, namely, Mr. Kamal Kanti Kar for repeatedly instituting frivolous and vexatious proceeding for and on behalf of his client for the selfsame relief when such relief had been turned down by this Court with costs in an earlier proceeding wherein he had represented the said litigants. Department as well as the State is directed to make necessary communication to the Bar Council of West Bengal for initiating disciplinary proceeding against the said lawyer and to submit compliance report before this Court within two weeks from date.

In view of the fact that I have initiated a proceeding of

criminal contempt against the petitioners, this matter shall be placed before the appropriate Bench having jurisdiction to deal with such matters. Both the petitioners are directed to appear personally before the appropriate Bench to answer the rule of contempt on 17.2.2017 in accordance with law.

In Re: C.R.R. No.1011 of 2016 with C.R.R. 4116 of 2016 I find that in C.R.R. 2105 of 2016 this Court had directed the trial Court to conclude the proceeding within a stipulated

WWW.LIVELAW.IN 6

time. In view of the materials on record and also bearing in mind the aforesaid dicta of this Court in CRR 2105 of 2016, I am of the opinion that quashing of the proceeding before the trial Court is wholly uncalled for. The application praying for quashing being C.R.R. No.1011 of 2016 and/or stay of proceeding in C.R.R. No.4116 of 2016 are dismissed.

The trial Court is directed to

proceed with the trial and conclude the same at an early date preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. Let photostat plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on usual undertaking.

(Joymalya Bagchi, J.)