JUDGMENT - P.B. SAWANT, J.:---These are two criminal applications filed by the Advocate General of the State under the provisions of section 2 of the Maharashtra Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) praying for directing the opponent Anand Prakash Arya not to institute any criminal proceedings in any Court in Greater Bombay without the leave of this Court and for an order that the proceedings instituted by him in courts in Greater Bombay be not continued further. Criminal Application No. 1191 of 1978 was admitted by this Court on the 5th of December, 1978 and an interim stay granted whereby pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition cases referred to in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the petition were stayed. It appears that between the filling of the said petition and the said interim order dated the 5th December, 1978, some more criminal proceedings were instituted by the opponent, and hence a further application being Criminal Application No. 1474 or 1978 was filed praying for the stay of those proceedings pending the hearing and final disposal of the Criminal Application No. 1191 of 1978. In the said application also a similar prayer for preventing the opponent from instituting or continuing any criminal proceedings in any Court in Greater Bombay was made. The second petition was admitted by this Court on the 29th of December, 1978 and an interim stay, as prayed for, was granted on that day. Criminal Application No. 241 of 1979 has been filed by one Dolly S. Kumana, who is one of the accused in several of the criminal proceedings instituted by the opponent. The prayer in this application is for addition of the applicant as a party to the main petition, viz., Criminal Application No. 1191 of 1978. Since the applicant Kumana is very much concerned, being one of the accused in the criminal proceedings instituted by the opponent, we see no reason to refuse his application for being added as a party. Hence the application is granted. 2. Now turning to the main application being Criminal Application No. 1191 of 1978, the allegations of the applicant-Advocate General in support of his application are as follows : The opponent Arya has in the past been convicted at least four times for various offences. Hence the application is granted. 2. Now turning to the main application being Criminal Application No. 1191 of 1978, the allegations of the applicant-Advocate General in support of his application are as follows : The opponent Arya has in the past been convicted at least four times for various offences. To mention only the two of the said convictions, in Case No. 192/S of 1961, he was convicted for defamation, by the learned Magistrate, 10th Court, Andheri, on 16th February, 1962, and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 12 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-. The observations made by the learned Magistrate while passing the said sentence have been quoted in the application, and according to the said observations, the accused in that case had passed the limits of decency in defaming the complainant and his wife. It was difficult, according to the learned Magistrate to imagine more wicked and filthy allegations than the ones which were made by the opponent, against the complainant and his wife. In Criminal Application No. 1387 of 1961, the opponent was convicted by this Court on the 3rd of May, 1963 and in that case this Court described the case of contempt as one of the gross contempt, having the effect of intimidating the witnesses and scandalizing the Court. He was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three months in that case. 3. On his own admission, according to the statement made by him, in paragraph 9 of his affidavit in reply find in the present case, since 1968 till 1976 he had filed over 40 criminal cases against various persons, including some of the accused, who are prosecuted in the proceedings which are sought to be stayed by the present application. It is also further admitted by the opponent through his Counsel Mr. Bangee, that at present there are no less than 19 cases which are pending in various courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates in the city. These 19 cases have been instituted after 1976 and are apart from the 40 cases, to which a reference has already been made. We do not think it is necessary to refer to them in detail. A compilation of some of the cases filed against the opponent, as well as those filed by him, has been filed on behalf of the applicant separately. We do not think it is necessary to refer to them in detail. A compilation of some of the cases filed against the opponent, as well as those filed by him, has been filed on behalf of the applicant separately. It is apparent from the contents of the various complaints filed by the opponent that in almost all of them, some of the accused are women-folks. In addition to the main accused, the opponent has also impleaded their relations including minor ones, friends, guests, visitors, their employers, servants, police officers, and also their legal advisers. A perusal of the various complaints filed by the opponent further shows that it is difficult to make any head or tail out of the statements made therein. In fact, the contents are so vague, the allegations so roving and the statements so disconnected that even the learned counsel appearing for the opponent was not in a position to satisfy us as to what exactly were the charges sought to be made out by the opponent against the various accused arraigned by him in those complaints. It may be mentioned that all these complaints have been drafted by the opponent himself and it appears from the statement made at the Bar by his Counsel Mr. Bangee that he had no connection with the drafting of the said complaints and that is probably why he was not in a position to satisfy us with regard to the gist of the charges sought to be made in the said complaints. As an illustration, we may mention four of the complaints which are at present pending in the courts :--- (a) In Criminal Case No. 114/S of 1978 filed in the Metropolitan Magistrate, 14th Court, Girgaum, Bombay, the opponent has arraigned in all six accused. Accused No. 1 is Smt. B.D. Kumana, who is admittedly his landlady and resides in Girgaum while the accused resides at Bandra, accused No. 2 is one Sadhu Singh, who is a liftman of the building in which the landlady resides; accused No. 3 is one S.B. Colabawalla, who is a Solicitor and a partner in the Solicitors firm named Mulla and Mulla; accused No. 4 is one Mrs. M.G. Mugwe, who is the wife of accused No. 6, M.G. Mugwe, who was at the relevant time the Director of Anti Corruption; and accused No. 5 is one Mohamed Shafi Relwan Khan, who is a tenant in the building in which the opponent himself is also a tenant. The complaint is filed for the alleged offences under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations as far as we could make out from the said complaint are as follows :--- In Criminal Case No. 295/S of 1977, filed in the Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Mulund against accused No. 1 in the present case (i.e. Case No. 114/S of 1978) and some others, the summonses were issued against the accused on 20th September, 1977. On the 10th of October, 1977, the opponent saw one of the accused in that case, namely, D.S. Kumana and one Sayed Hasan @ Fakira, trying to dissuade the Police Constable Batch No. 12321 from serving the summonses upon some of the accused, on the premises of the Court, which had issued the said summonses. On the 17th of October, 1977, he made a complaint to the judicial clerk of that Court in that connection and the judicial clerk gave him another Police Constable. He thereafter accompanied by this new constable went to serve the summons upon accused No. 1 in the present case, i.e. B.D. Kumana and found accused No. 1 talking to accused No. 3 at the entrance of her door. When accused No. 1 saw him with the Police Constable, she became furious and questioned as to how a Police Constable could ever enter the building. She then threatened to complain to the Commissioner of Police on phone and told him that the Police Commissioners wife was with her on several social committees. Thereafter she phoned accused No. 4, i.e. Mrs. Mugwe and asked the opponent to talk to her on phone. When the opponent talked to accused No. 4 on phone, accused No. 4 ordered him to get out of the building without serving the summons. Accused No. 4 also threatened him with dire consequences, if he did not do so. Accused No. 3, who was then talking to accused No. 1 at her door, also called him a scoundrel, a cheat, a rascal, a bastard, and threatened him with dire consequences. Accused No. 4 also threatened him with dire consequences, if he did not do so. Accused No. 3, who was then talking to accused No. 1 at her door, also called him a scoundrel, a cheat, a rascal, a bastard, and threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, accused No. 1 phoned accused No. 6, i.e. Mr. Mugwe, the Director of Anti-Corruption and again gave the opponent the telephone line. Mr. Mugwe also then asked the opponent to get out of the building, or otherwise he would get him arrested by the Gamdevi Police Station. Thereafter as he was leaving the building, accused Nos. 1 and 5 met him near the entrance of the building and threatened him with dire consequences and abused him. According to the opponent, one taxiwalla and some others, who are not known, witnessed the said incident. He then went to the Gamdevi Police Station to lodge the complaint against the accused, but the Police refused to record his complaint. That is why he filed the aforesaid Criminal Case No. 114/S of 1978. b) In Criminal Contempt Application No. 43 of 1978, filed in the Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Mulund, there are nine accused, including the six of the accused in the above Criminal Case No. 114, S of 1978 filed in the Girgaum Court. The added three accused include one J.B. Contractor, at the relevant time Assistant Commissioner of Police; D.S. Kumana, the husband of accused No. 1; and one S. Hassan, another tenant in the same building in which the opponent resides. The added three accused include one J.B. Contractor, at the relevant time Assistant Commissioner of Police; D.S. Kumana, the husband of accused No. 1; and one S. Hassan, another tenant in the same building in which the opponent resides. The allegations in this application are as follows: "That in Criminal Case No. 114/S of 1977, certain serious police-Administration malpractices being indulged in under spurious legal cover by Chief Police Prosecutor Deshpande, under the guise of defending, Director of Anti-Corruption Branch and P.I. Mugwe, and A.C.P.J. Contractor, have of late assumed alarming proportions and as such in public interest and legal fairplay, the said steps have been taken by me." The complaint then further proceeds as follows : "Informing the Lok-Ayukt J. Shimpi and Upa Lok-Ayukt L.M. Nadkarni, I.C.S. (Retd.) of the abuse of official position through Mugwes direct orders (now he is I.G.) or connivance, of the use of police jeep to carry Advocates O. DSouza, S. Bhat and K. Vaidya to and from XXVII and XIV courts on dates of hearing of Criminal Cases 114/S/77 and 43/N/78, together with 2 constables carrying law books and C.I.D. Inspector Kamath acting as "File Bearer" in Court of Deshpande and other advocates, since the commencement of these cases." The complaint proceeds in the same vein. Then the complaint makes a deemed in paragraph 7 as follows : Paragraph 7: "that this application respectfully further inquire as follows : (a) that a copy of this application under Notice be given to C.P.P. Deshpande to reply in writing to the following points : (i) who was sanctioned the use of police jeep P.Cs., C.I.D. Inspector Kamath for his regular attendance in these cases, on all dates of hearing, knowing full well that the cases are private ones. (ii) has he got written permission to appear for the defence of respondents 6 and 7, or is he doing it in his official capacity. (iii) in this private case under what authority is he using C.I.D. Inspector Kamath to serve the copy of respondent 7 and F.C. 18345 on 8-5-78 at 5 p.m. on my Advocate C.Y. Bangee, when he could have handed it over the next day at 10.30 a.m. in XXVII Court. Also why Kamath insisted on knowing my Advocate C.Y. Bangees residential address". Also why Kamath insisted on knowing my Advocate C.Y. Bangees residential address". In the second last paragraph of the complaint, the opponent then states as follows : "That in Your Worships directions for recording of the statement in Court of P.C. 18345, my Advocate Shri Bangee had addressed a letter to the Chief Minister (Home-Portfolio) for his directing the Commissioner of Police to through proper channel report himself (P.C. 18345) to the XXVII Court for recording of his statement. Here again is proof positive of the interference of C.P.P. Deshpande added by S. Bhat, of thoroughly distorting the contents of this letter, by, as Deshpande stated in Court his asking the Inspector, Mulund Police Station to record the statement of P.C. 18345/G, and whereas this statement fits in directly with the requirements of Deshpande and Bhat; it is quite proper to infer that they have a complete facility to get P.C. 18345 statement as per their requirements. This is further corroborated by C.P.P. Deshpandes withdrawal of the stay application which he insistent then, that if respondents 6 or 7 filed, it would expose their defences in 114/S/77 of XIV Court. Their utter opportunism is fully exposes in this. That P.C. 18345 Affidavit here, materially differs from his statement on 18-10-77 to S.I. Sawant of Gamdevi Police Station, in C.R. 1346/77 does not disturb Deshpande or Bhat, both masters of distortion, and this would not have occurred if the Official Gazette position of C.P.P. Deshpande was "misused", in these two private cases 43/N/78 and 114/S/77." 16th April, 1979. The application then ends with the prayer as follows : "My plea further in this matter is that if the replies are not satisfactory and adequate in Law, that C.P.P. Deshpande be ordered by this Court to forthwith withdraw from this case." These are the contents of the so-called contempt application filed by him. c) We may now refer to the contents of criminal complaint in Criminal Case No. 295/S of 1977 filed by him in the XXVII Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Mulund against seven accused. c) We may now refer to the contents of criminal complaint in Criminal Case No. 295/S of 1977 filed by him in the XXVII Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Mulund against seven accused. Accused No. 1 is one driver Chaggan, who was supposed to be the chauffeur of motor car No. MRJ 7407; accused No. 2 is the wife of the brother of the landlord D.S. Kumana; D.S. Kumana is himself made accused No. 6; then accused No. 3 is one N.P. Kapadia, who is the Managing Director and Chairman of Killicks Nixon Co. the employer of the landlord D.S. Kumana; accused No. 4 is the wife of the landlord D.S. Kumana; accused No. 5 is the wife of another brother of the landlord D.S. Kumana; and accused No. 7 is his sister. It may be mentioned that all these accused live at different addresses and in different parts of the city and are far removed from the place where the opponent is residing. In this complaint, the opponent has charged all the seven accused for the offences under sections 500, 504, 506, 323 read with section 34 of the Penal Code. Some portions of his complaint may be reproduced in his own language, as follows, although at the cost of a lengthy reproduction :- Paragraph : 5 "That accused Drab Kumana has drafted (I know his style of writing) and a highly defamatory and incendiary letter and accused H.S. Besania has sent it on 20-4-77 to M. Rahim Khan (Accused in a number of criminal cases) Goel and others and a copy of which was first shown to me by one Chawla at Kurla, and who expressed grave surprise at its defamatory contents". It may be mentioned here that H.S. Besania, who is referred herein is not an accused in this complaint. Paragraph 6 : "That on 4-9-77 at L.B.S. Marg, Mulund, when myself, my wife, S. Manglarekar, S. Singh, Ghorpode, Baid had gone and were at the Gowshala to which we had donated some hybrid English Heifers and.......................... ...we all left side of the road. Herein upon accused No. 1 got out in great temper and accused us saying.... ......and advanced and slapped me and began filthily abusing the others. He was joined by accused Nos. 2 and 7 (who are women and wives of the brothers of the landlord) who began screaming.. .........Hereupon accused Nos. ...we all left side of the road. Herein upon accused No. 1 got out in great temper and accused us saying.... ......and advanced and slapped me and began filthily abusing the others. He was joined by accused Nos. 2 and 7 (who are women and wives of the brothers of the landlord) who began screaming.. .........Hereupon accused Nos. 3, 4 and 6 also advanced and accused threatened to get him arrested for obstructing the reversing of the car MRJ 7407, but when I remonstrated that he was in wrong he began brandishing his stick held in his hand and threatening him............and further abused and threatened all of us and accused No. 4 was shouting defamatory language to my wife and told her to go back to Nepal. Accused Nos. 2 and 5 began screaming............Hereupon S. Singh, Baid and myself could not bear any longer to have our goddess maligned and also people nearby began to gather menacingly, and so all 7 accused prudently went towards the car and got into it and drove. My wife was too shocked and dazed and went to the Guest House to rest, whereas S. Singh, Baid Gorpade and myself were going to the Police Station when we met one Havaldar...... .....and informed him and he came with us to see if he could see the car but it was not there..........Thereafter at the Police Station my complaint No. 4152 was registered and two constables...........were further sent with me in taxi to see if we could overtake accused.............. That I state that the accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 have been swearing vengeance on me; merely because I am legally defending my rights in property............" 5. Among the witnesses cited in the list of witnesses is his family doctor Dr. Koppikar and the only eye-witnesses are "other by-standards whose names are to be ascertained and produced as witnesses." d) It may be mentioned that the accused has filed yet another complaint being Criminal Case No. 43/S of 1978 against a different set of accused with similar allegations word to word alleging, of course, that this the incident had taken place at some other venue. It will be interesting quote from the said complaint the grievance of the opponent. In this complaint, in all five persons are made. Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are brother landlord Kumana; accused No. 2 is one Satyamurthy. It will be interesting quote from the said complaint the grievance of the opponent. In this complaint, in all five persons are made. Accused Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are brother landlord Kumana; accused No. 2 is one Satyamurthy. a partner of one S.M. Builders intending purchasers of the property in which the complainant is a tenant; and accused No. 5 D.S. Besania is a partner in the firm of the Solicitors, who are the legal advisers of the landlord Kumana. Here again the complaint is filled for the alleged offences under sections 500, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the contents of the complaint are as follows; Paragraph 5 : "That accused No. 4 has drafted (I know the style of writing) and a highly defamatory and incendiary letter and accused No. 5 has sent it on 20-4-77 to M. Rahim Khan (accused in a number of criminal case), Goel and others and a copy of which was first shown to me by one Chawla at Kurla, and who expressed grave surprise at its defamatory contents." Paragraph 6 : "That as a direct result of this letter I was assaulted severely by Khans associates, Hasan Fakira and Yusuf Fakir and 8 others on 23-4-77 and police have arrested them and registered a case." Paragraph 7 : "That on 19-6-1977 when I had been to Chembur I saw above 5 accused who were in a car MRT 7407 and they tried to run me over with the car; but I side-stepped and they halted the car and accused No. 5 threatened me that...........whereas accused No. 4 took off his wrist watch and got ready to beat me up, but the public intervening, they being frustrated accused No. 3 began to filthily abuse me and accused No. 1 began defaming me and other accused 2, 3 and 1 began shouting.........." Paragraph 8 : "That I told them to wait as I would fetch the police and properly deal with them; and walked away, but on going ahead a stone landed near me and I saw accused No. 4 picking up another stone and the other four accused also began pleting stones and so I ran and seeing a taxi got into it and drove to the police station and lodged my complaint and took constables.............to site, but accused were not found there. Police also sent constable............in another direction to see if this could be found, but accused were not there." Paragraph 9 : "That as such I charge the accused with abusing and threatening my life and prayed that process be issued against them..........." 6. It will thus be apparent from the contents of the complaints, to which we have made a reference by way of illustration that the opponent seems to be in the habit of making all sorts of allegations against any person, whom he suspects to be coming in the way of his acquiring the property in which he is the tenant. It will be relevant to mention here that the opponent is a tenant in the property, of which D.S. Kumana, one of the persons who has figured as an accused in various complaints, is the landlord. It further appears that the landlord has contracted to sell the said property to one S.M. Builders, a firm doing business in land. It transpires from the record that the opponent wanted to purchase this property for a sum of Rs. 60,000/-, whereas the said S.M. Builders contracted to purchase the same for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and it is this agreement that the landlords has entered into with the said S.M. Builders for the sale of the property which has hurt the opponent and which is at the bottom of the various complaints that the opponent has been filing against the landlord, his friends, guests, relations, legal advisers and the police officials, not sparing even the family members of the said persons. That also seems to be the reason why he has been concocting the incidents as is apparent from the perusal of the various complaints filed by him. It appears that the opponents is either doing it deliberately to harass and annoy the landlord and all those who are connected with him with a view to compelling him to resale from the said agreement of sale and to compel him to sell the said property to him, or he is suffering from some kind of a persecution mania which makes him treat the entire world as his enemy. It is this malady, if one may say so, afflicting the opponent, which has led him to file the various complaints against the various persons. It is this malady, if one may say so, afflicting the opponent, which has led him to file the various complaints against the various persons. We are more than satisfied that the general nature and tenor of all the said complaints is such that it is difficult to hold that there is any substance in them. On the other hand, we are convinced that the said complaints have been filed, not only without any basis for the allegations made therein, but also with the avowed purpose of harassing and annoying the persons concerned. 7. It also further appears that the opponent has no regard whatsoever for truth. Even during the hearing of the present application, we came across two instances where the opponent has shown a marked tendency to subvert truth. It will be necessary to mention them here, for that will not only show how the opponent is abusing the processes of law, but also the respect that he has for the courts in general. The first instance relates to his making prevaricating statements with regard to accused No. 4 in Criminal Case No. 166/S of 1978 filed by him in the Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Bandra. Accused No. 4 has been described there as Muni Y.H. alias Chhoti Budhi. She is the minor daughter of one Hakim Sayyed Hasan, who is also a Special Executive Magistrate and who had figured as one of the accused in that case. She is aged 13 years and studies in Std. VIII in St. Josephs Convent School, Hill Road, Bandra. The opponent accompanied by the Police Constable had gone to the school to serve the said Muni with the summons. The Principal of the School, however, refused to accept the summons and on the next day her father Hakim Sayyed Hasan accepted the said summons on behalf of her from the Constable. At the same time, he also accepted the summons for himself, his father, his mother and his wife, who were all made accused in that case. When we asked the learned Counsel Mr. Bangee for the opponent whether it was a fact that the said minor girl Muni was made an accused in that criminal case, Mr. At the same time, he also accepted the summons for himself, his father, his mother and his wife, who were all made accused in that case. When we asked the learned Counsel Mr. Bangee for the opponent whether it was a fact that the said minor girl Muni was made an accused in that criminal case, Mr. Bangee took instructions from his client the opponent, and informed us that it was not a fact, and that in fact accused No. 4 Muni referred to therein was a woman of 40 years of age. We then asked the opponent to file his affidavit to that effect. We also directed the Government Pleader Mr. Kotwal to file the affidavit of the Constable, who had tried to serve the summons on the said girl, and who had ultimately served the summons on behalf of the girl on her father Hakim Sayyed Hasan. As per the directions, the opponent filed an affidavit in which he tried to make out a case that accused No. 4 was a 40 years old woman and was engaged in prostitution business and that she was residing in servants quarters in the compound of the said St. Joseph School, and he had actually gone there to serve her and not the daughter of Hakim Sayyed Hasan. That is how he tried to get over the inconvenient situation in which he found himself. Tulsiram Pandurang Jadhav, Police Constable Badge No. 13505/M attached to the Bandra Police Station, however, filed his affidavit and asserted that he accompanied by the opponent has gone to the St. Josephs Convent School, Bandra to serve the summons on the said Muni, who is the daughter of Sayyed Hakim. In fact, prior to going to the said school, the opponent had taken him to two other schools in Bandra inquiring whether the said Muni was studying in those schools. He also confirmed what was stated by Hakim Sayyed in his affidavit, namely, that Hakim Sayyed accepted the summons on behalf of his daughter Muni. In particular, he has asserted that when the opponent took him to the St. Josephs Convent School, the Lady Principal of the school, after looking at the Register had told the opponent that there was no such girl as Muni Y.H. alias Chhoti Budhi in the said school. In particular, he has asserted that when the opponent took him to the St. Josephs Convent School, the Lady Principal of the school, after looking at the Register had told the opponent that there was no such girl as Muni Y.H. alias Chhoti Budhi in the said school. It may be mentioned in this connection that the accused has been in the habit of giving aliases to all the persons, who have been arraigned as the accused in all his complaints and it is very likely that because of the aliases given by the opponent in the complaint, the Principal had told the Constable and the opponent that no such girl was enrolled in the said school at all, although the said girl was studying in the said school. It will thus be apparent from this conduct of the accused disclosed in this very proceeding that truthfulness does not appear to be one of his virtues. 8. Another matter in respect of which he made a patently false statement was his so-called appeal in the Supreme Court against a decision of this Court in Criminal Application No. 1387 of 1961, decided on 3rd May, 1963. Through his Counsel Mr. Bangee, he represented to us that he had preferred an appeal against the said decision, and the same was still pending in the Supreme Court. We called for record from the Supreme Court Branch of this Court, to verify as to whether this statement was correct and we found that no such appeal was preferred against the said decision. We, therefore, asked the opponent to file his affidavit to explain the statement which he had made in the Court. As per the said direction, he has filed to-day an affidavit which is full of rigmarole. It will be a waste of time to reproduce the contents thereof as the same do not make any sense whatsoever. A reading of the affidavit which has been taken on record will make this clear for anyone, who even casually goes through the same. This again proves, as stated above, that the opponent is also given to making false statements even in courts of law. 9. A reference yet to another complaint filed by the opponent being Criminal Case No.1/S of 1978 in the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Bandra, may also be made in this connection. This again proves, as stated above, that the opponent is also given to making false statements even in courts of law. 9. A reference yet to another complaint filed by the opponent being Criminal Case No.1/S of 1978 in the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Court at Bandra, may also be made in this connection. The same in addition shows the type of complaints that he has been filling and the nature of grievances he has against the persons he chooses to implicate as accused. This complaint is filed against one S. Hasan Fakira and the grievance of the opponent in this complaint is that on 3-11-77 the accused put up two boards proclaiming himself to be the Special Executive Magistrate to the Government of Maharashtra. He had, therefore, written to the Chief Minister that since there were police cases against the said S. Hasan, the said title conferred upon him by the Government should be withdrawn, if the said S. Hasan had got himself appointed as a Special Executive Magistrate by fraud. In paragraph 15 of the affidavit filed by him in the present proceedings he made a statement that the then Deputy Chief Minister of the State ordered the C.I.D. to enquire and on its report he revoked the appointment of the said Hasan as the Special Executive Magistrate. When we questioned him as to whether this statement was correct, he assured us about it through his Counsel Mr. Bangee. However, the said Hasan filed his affidavit asserting that he was still a Special Executive Magistrate and also produced a certificate in this Court for our perusal. This also reflects upon the opponents regard for veracity. 10. Thus, it is more than clear to us that the opponent has been indulging in filing criminal cases against various persons either as a pastime or to seek his own ulterior and through harassment of the said persons. The general nature of the contents of the complaints filed in these various cases reveals that he has either been imaging incidents or deliberately concocting them. Whatever be the reason which impels the opponent to file such cases, there is no doubt that the complaints appear to frivolous and without any substance, and are being filed by him for the sole purpose of causing annoyance to the persons concerned. Whatever be the reason which impels the opponent to file such cases, there is no doubt that the complaints appear to frivolous and without any substance, and are being filed by him for the sole purpose of causing annoyance to the persons concerned. We are, therefore, more than satisfied that this is a case where it is necessary that the relief applied for by the learned Advocate General should be granted. 11. Mr. Bangee, the learned Counsel for the opponent, contended since the opponent has been taking the trouble of filing all these cases, it should be presumed that prima facie he has genuine grievances. When we asked Mr. Bangee to spell out as to what were the exact grievances in the various complaints on record, he was unable to pinpoint the same. As stated earlier, we are also unable to make out anything out of the contents of the said complaints. Except vague allegations made in a circumslocutory manner, full of rigmarole, we did not find anything worthwhile in the same. We are also unable to agree with Mr. Bangee that merely because the opponent has been spending his time, energy and money in filing the complaints, it should be held that he has a genuine grievance against the persons concerned. It is precisely to stop the vexatious activities of such busy bodies as the opponent, that the Act has been placed on the statue book. This is, therefore, one of those cases where the Act must step in aid of the victims. In the circumstances, we are inclined to allow the application. We, therefore, pass the following order under section 2 of the said Act : 12. The criminal proceedings instituted by the opponent and at present pending in the various courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates in Greater Bombay, except Criminal Cases Nos. 11/S of 1978 and 171/S of 1978 shall not be continued by the opponent. 13. That no criminal proceedings shall be instituted by the opponent in any Court in Greater Bombay without the leave of this Court. 14. A copy of this order shall be published in the Official Gazette. It will also be sent to all the courts of the Metropolitan Magistrates, as well as the Sessions Court, Greater Bombay. -----