JUDGMENT 1. - This application under section 482 Cr. P.C. read with Section 397 Cr. P.C. by B.L. Kedia are of the accused in a case under Sections 420, 478, 471 read with Section 120 B, I.P.C. which is under trial before the Special Judge Jaipur, is wholly groundless and vexatious and therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine. 2. It will be seen that the prosecution case against the accused petitioner and others was launched way back in the year 1971. He has not allowed it to proceed beyond the stage of recording the prosecution evidence during all these years. The learned Special Judge set-down this case for recording the statement of the accused-petitioner under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in early 1982. The statements of the co-accused had already been recorded. The accused petitioner refused to appear before the learned Special Judge on one excuse or the other and eventually when he found that it would be unavoidable for him to make the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he made an attempt to stultify the proceedings by making an application, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for an order to defer the recording of the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. and in the meantime to recall the prosecution witnesses to enable the accused to cross-examine them further. The said application was dismissed by this court on September 2, 1982. Undeterred by the said dismissal, he filed a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court to prevent the further proceedings against him in the criminal case pending before the Special Judge, Jaipur. The writ petition was dismissed by the Calcutta High Court. He then approached the Supreme Court for Special leave against the order of the Calcutta High Court. The Special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court. Now, he has once again turned to this High Court with another application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the charge framed against him and in fact for quashing the criminal prosecution which is pending against him since 1971. 3. The above narrative would itself bring out the vexatious and frivolous nature of this application under Section 482 Cr. Now, he has once again turned to this High Court with another application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing the charge framed against him and in fact for quashing the criminal prosecution which is pending against him since 1971. 3. The above narrative would itself bring out the vexatious and frivolous nature of this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. Had the criminal prosecution been without any basis as is now sought to be made out, the petitioner would not have lost the opportunity to challenge it on that ground by filing an application during the last 12 years and in any case he would have challenged it on that ground in his application under section 482 Cr. P.C. filed in this court in 1982. I may also mention here that the accused petitioner has not placed on record the charge-sheet which according to him is groundless. Instead, he had placed on record the charge-sheet framed against the co-accused. 4. For the reasons indicated above, I dismiss this application in limine.Application dismissed. *******