ORDER
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. All these Criminal Revision Cases are being disposed of through this common order, as the parties and the issues are one and the same.
2. These cases have got a chequered history:
“(a) V.S. Narayanan, the petitioner herein is arrayed as A3 in four private complaints filed by M/s. Guruvayurappan Investments Company, Madurai with an allegation that the four cheques issued by the accused company in which the petitioner is the whole-time Director-cum-Secretary, were dishonoured and the cheque amount was not paid. These complaints were filed on 1.7.1999 before the trial Court and taken on file in C.C.Nos.485 of 1999 to 488 of 1999.
(b) After entering appearance, all the three accused including the petitioner filed petitions in Crl.M.P.Nos.7008 to 7011 of 1999 under Section 204 Cr.P.C. on 3.11.1999 for discharge contending that the complaint is not valid. After hearing the counsel for parties, the trial Court dismissed the discharge applications on 10.1.2000.
(c) Admittedly, the said order was not challenged before the higher forum. Instead, all the three accused including the petitioner (A3) filed quashing applications before this Court in Crl.O.P.Nos.11806 to 11809 of 2000 raising the very same point raised in the trial Court under Section 204 Cr.P.C. This Court by the order dated 22.3.2001 dismissed the applications granting liberty to the petitioners to raise all these points before the trial Court during the course of trial. Further, this Court directed the trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
(d) Even though the order had been passed with a direction to the trial Court to go on with the trial and dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, there was no progress in the trial till December 2001. Therefore, the complainant, the respondent herein filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.9391 of 2001 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction for disposal of the case within the time framed.
(e) In the light of the earlier order passed by this Court dated 22.3.2001, this Court again by the order dated 21.12.2001 directed the trial Court to comply with the order dated 22.3.2001 by disposing the matter within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order.
(f) In pursuance of the above order, trial commenced in the trial Court. The complainant was examined as P.W.1 on 11.1.2002 and documents also were marked through him.
(g) Thereafter, the petitioner (A3) filed applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.315, 317, 319 and 321 of 2002 requesting the Court to delete the names of the second and third accused and instead, substitute one Ramasamy. These petitions also were heard by giving opportunity to both sides. Ultimately, on 18.1.2002, the trial Court dismissed these petitions.
(h) Challenging this order, the petitioner (A3) filed Crl.R.C.Nos.138 to 141 of 2002 before this Court. Ultimately, these revisions also were dismissed as withdrawn by the order dated 8.3.2002.
(i) After having withdrawn these revisions, the petitioner again filed applications in Crl.M.P.Nos.2002 to 2005 of 2002 under Section 204 Cr.P.C. to delete the name of the petitioner in arraying as an accused. Again opportunity was given for both parties to make their submission in these applications. Ultimately, these applications were dismissed by the order dated 15.5.2002. This order is under the challenge before this Court in these four revisions.”
3. From the reading of the entire records, it is clear that this is a third round of litigation. Firstly, the petitioner sought for discharge from the complaint which was filed in the year 1999 and the same dismissed on January 2000. Instead of challenging the same, the petitioner and others filed separate quashing applications raising the same ground and the same were dismissed in March 2001. In this order, this Court specifically directed that all the points raised could be raised only during the course of trial. This would mean that no interim application raising this point would be entertained by the trial Court.
4. Further, it is noticed that even though such a direction was issued for expeditious disposal of the case, there was no progress and therefore, the complainant was constrained to file another application and got a specific order from this Court on 21.12.2001 that the entire trial must be concluded and the case to be disposed of within 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. But, without giving respect to these orders passed by this Court, the petitioner and others filed applications to delete the names of A2 and A3, thereby put a hurdle from proceeding further in disobedience of the orders passed by this Court dated 22.3.2001 and 21.12.2001.
5. It is curious to note that those applications were filed after the commencement of trial. At that stage, P.W.1 was examined in chief and all the documents were marked. Section 305 Cr.P.C. applications were also dismissed on 18.1.2002. The petitioner filed revisions challenging the said order before this Court and when the matter came up for final disposal without choosing to contest the matter, the revisions were withdrawn and the same were dismissed on 8.3.2002. Unfortunately, the petitioner again approached the trial Court by raising the very same point by filing applications under Section 204 Cr.P.C. seeking for the discharge. These applications have been correctly dismissed on 15.5.2002 which is under the challenge in these revisions.
6. The above factors would reveal that the petitioner somehow or the other wanted to drag on the matter by filing application after application and on getting the same dismissed filing revision after revision before this Court. But, it is noticed that none of the petitions either the quashing applications or the revisions filed on two different periods were contested. All these petitions were ultimately withdrawn.
7. This conduct on the part of the petitioner would show that the petitioner by circumventing the orders passed by this Court on 22.3.2001 and 21.12.2001 adopted the methods which are not fair and legal to scuttle the progress of the trial.
8. In all these petitions, the only ground urged by the petitioner is that he is not in charge of the company which issued cheques and he has not signed the agreement. But, the reading of the complaint would show that it is specifically mentioned that the third accused in his capacity as Director and Secretary of the Company, is also responsible for the conduct of the business of the first accused Company and he has signed the agreement dated 3.9.1998.
9. It is further mentioned in the complaint that on behalf of the company, he has issued earlier cheques. These wordings contained in the complaint would show that he is a party to the offence. Therefore, deletion of his name and substitution of another in his place would not arise.
10. Under those circumstances, without any merit the petitioner has been raising the same contention by filing several applications before the trial Court as well as before this Court and thereby wasted the Court’s time.
11. In the present revision petitions, the petitioner did not choose to mention about the specific direction issued by this Court with reference to the time framed for the disposal of the case. This is nothing but suppression of the facts and an attempt to get the interim order in his favour to stop the trial in violation of the direction given by this Court.
12. This Court feels that the petitioner’s conduct in filing application by suppressing the earlier order and raising the same points before the trial Court again and again at the interlocutory stage without giving any respect to the orders of this Court, is wanton and wilful.
13. Therefore, while dismissing these revisions, it would be appropriate to impose costs on the petitioner who has caused so much inconvenience to both the trial Court and this Court. Accordingly, he is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) in each petition totalling Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) to ‘Women’s India Association’ (For Leprosy Rehabilitation Project), 43, Greenways Road, Chennai-28 within three weeks from today. The trial Court is directed to take up the matter, continue the trial and finish the same within two months from the date of receipt of this order.
14. The petitioner is also directed not to file any more application of interlocutory nature and he must allow the trial Court to finish the trial and dispose of the matter within the stipulated time. If any attempt is made by the petitioner to put hurdles in the progress of trial, it is open to the respondent to file necessary petition before this Court to take action against the petitioner for contempt.
15. With these observations, the revisions are dismissed. Consequently, connected Crl. M. Ps. are also dismissed. Post the matter for reporting compliance on 18.09.2002.