Delhi HC imposes Rs 1 lakh as cost for frivolous petition
Delhi HC imposed a cost of Rs 1lakh on five persons for filing a frivolous petition to delay criminal proceedings pending against them in a trial court for allegedly filing a false affidavit before SC in 1994 in a detention case.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday
imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on five persons for filing a
frivolous petition to delay criminal proceedings pending
against them in a trial court for allegedly filing a false
affidavit before the apex court in 1994 in a detention case.
"The petition being frivolous is dismissed with a cost of
Rs 1,00,000," said Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra in a
judgement and directed the accused persons to deposit the
amount with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee.
"This petition is a gross misuse of the judicial process.
The accused persons have come for the second time before this
court assailing the procedure adopted by the Metropolitan
Magistrate (MM)," Justice Dhingra added.
"The whole effort of the accused persons seems to be not
to allow the trial procedure further. The case is a glaring
example how the trial can be stalled by adopting delaying
tactics" the court said.
Referring to the January 2000 order of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate`s(CMM) dismissing their first application
questioning the procedure adopted by the MM, the HC said that
the accused had filed an application in 2009 raising the same
issue which the CMM had dismissed.
A joint petition was filed before Justice Dhingra by
Mohan Lal Jatia, his wife, son and two other persons
challenging the CMM`s December 2009 order.
The accused persons have been facing trial before the MM
on the charge of filing a false affidavit before the Supreme
Court in 1994 in case filed by them challenging their
detention by government agency.
Taking note of the fact, the apex court had directed CBI
to inquire into the entire episode by the accused persons.
CBI had, in a sealed cover, submitted a report before
the Registrar of Supreme Court about the alleged offence
committed by the accused persons.
The Registrar had sent a copy of the report to the CMM
with a recommendation to initiate criminal proceedings against
In 1999, the CMM marked the case for hearing to a MM
which had summoned the accused persons.