ORDER:- This is a rather unfortunate case. The petitioner, who is the accused in C.C. No. 13063 of 1963 on the file of the Seventh Presidency Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, has filed this petition, for quashing the proceedings, under section 561-A and other sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that, after the charge-sheet against him was filed by the police on 9th July, 1962, the proceedings in the Court of the Seventh Presidency Magistrate were stopped by the Magistrate, due to non-readiness of the prosecution to proceed with the case on as many as nine occasions, each time the Police filing a fresh charge-sheet, sometime after the stopping of the proceedings by the Magistrate under section 249, Criminal Procedure Code. It is alleged by the petitioner that the present renewal of the charge-sheet is the tenth in the series and that this procedure has caused unnecessary hardship to the accused, and amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, so as to attract the provisions of section 561-A of Criminal Procedure Code. I called for a report from the learned Seventh Presidency Magistrate on this allegation. His report is that it was a fact that the case had been stopped on eight previous occasions and that the present charge-sheet is the 9th or the 10th in a successive chain. Even assuming it is the ninth in the chain of successive stoppages under section 249, Criminal Procedure Code, and followed by renewal of the charge-sheet by the Police, such frequent stoppages followed by fresh charge-sheets show that there was something wrong in the way in which the case was being dealt with. by the prosecution. A look at the charge-sheet shows that the case against the accused was a simple one under section 4 (1) (a) of the Madras Prohibition Act. It is alleged that he was found in possession of four bottles of Tincture Gingiberis, a medicinal preparation containing alcohol, without the requisite permit or licence. The charge cites two prosecution witnesses besides the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector. It is alleged that he was found in possession of four bottles of Tincture Gingiberis, a medicinal preparation containing alcohol, without the requisite permit or licence. The charge cites two prosecution witnesses besides the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector. The particulars about these two witnessess are given as " Arumugham, M.S.V.B. Road, (and) Krishnan, Rundalls Road," Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out that the vague way in which the particulars of these witnesses are supplied in the charge-sheet would show that the prosecution had completely lost touch with these witnesses, and that they were frivolously keeping the proceedings alive, not knowing the whereabouts of these witnesses. There is some force in this contention, because neither the fathers’ names of witnesses nor the number of the premises where, they are to be found in the roads mentioned are given in the charge-sheet. It is well-known that Nethaji Subhas Chandra Bose Road is one of the busiest and longest roads in Madras City, and to locate the witnesses by reference to the road only, without any further particulars about the house-number or room-number would be a waste of efforts. Learned Public Prosecutor argued that, if the particulars of address of the witnesses are given, the six accused might tamper with them. The accused resides in V. V. Koil Street, Choolai. It is hardly likely "that he would be able to exert much influence as to tamper the witnesses, who live in an entirely different locality. It is also mentioned by the Public Prosecutor that the Sub-Inspector of Police was ill for a portion of the time. But it would have been possible for the prosecution to have waited till his recovery from the illness and, on satisfying themselves that the witnesses could be conveniently secured, after ascertaining their addresses, for the hearing of the case, they could have filed a fresh charge-sheet and the case disposed of once for all. But the fact that they had to file charge-sheet on as many as 9 occasions, each proving infructuous, would clearly show that even at the present moment the prosecution is unable to lay its hands on the proper witnesses to prove their case. But the fact that they had to file charge-sheet on as many as 9 occasions, each proving infructuous, would clearly show that even at the present moment the prosecution is unable to lay its hands on the proper witnesses to prove their case. My attention has been drawn to a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bir Singh v. State1where a single Judge referred to the fact that, while the High Court would not interfere at an interlocutory stage of any proceeding pending before a subordinate Court, in exceptional cases it might become necessary to do so. Thus where successive complaints were filed with the obvious intention of causing harassment to the accused without prosecuting them, there would be abuse of the process of the Court justifying the quashing of the proceedings in exercise of the inherent powers of the High Court in the interest of justice. Here, though the prosecution might not have intended to harass the accused, it is clear that the filing of repeated charge-sheets, without the prosecution being in a position to secure the witnesses for the effective hearing of the case, would itself amount to harassment as well as abuse of the process of the Court. I am of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercise of the powers under section 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code. I Accordingly quash the proceedings before the lower Court. V.K. ------------- Proceedings quashed.