N. N. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Miscellaneous Application has been filed by Yashodhar omkarlalji Jain, party-in-person under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in the matter of complainant case No. 53/94 pending in the Court of the Metropolitan magistrate, Court No. 2, Ahmedabad. The petitioner has prayed that, respondents No 4 to 9 may be added in the said case as an accused for the offence under Sections 166, 219, 420, 427, 120-B IPC and also that the case be tried by the court of Sessions judge. ( 2 ) ON 29th February 1996, this Court (Coram: D. G. Karia, J.) directed to issue fresh notice, as it was found from the report dated December 31, 1995 that though the notices had been served on the respondents NO. 1 to 9 in the Branch office of the State Bank of India, at C. N. Vidhyalaya, no signature were taken from any of the respondents. Thus, in the opinion of the Court, the service was insufficient. Shri R. N. Doshit, learned Counsel, however put his appearance for the Deputy general Manager, State Bank of India. In view of this, a fresh notices were directed to be issued to the unserved respondents no. 1 to 9, making it returnable on 19-3- 1996. On 2-4-1996, the party-in-person submitted before this Court (Coram: S. D. Dave, J.) that he has challenged the order dated 29-2-1996 before the Supreme court. On this ground, the matter was adjourned to 30-4-1996. On the same ground the petitioner again sought adjournment on 30-4-1996 and the case was adjourned to 21st August 1996. The party- in-person again informed the Court that the matter is still pending before the Supreme court and therefore, this Court (Coram A. R. Dave, J.) adjourned the matter to 20-12-1996. ( 3 ) THE party-in-person present before me today. He is not in a position to say with respect to the filing of petition before Supreme court, the ground on which he sought earlier adjournments. ( 4 ) I have heard the party-in-person present in the Court and has also gone through the memo of petition. ( 5 ) A reading of para 1 of the memo of petition shows that he is aggrieved of the order dated 17-11-95, but there is no prayer with respect to quashing of the same. ( 4 ) I have heard the party-in-person present in the Court and has also gone through the memo of petition. ( 5 ) A reading of para 1 of the memo of petition shows that he is aggrieved of the order dated 17-11-95, but there is no prayer with respect to quashing of the same. Be that as it may, there is nothing to show as to why the non-applicants Nos. 4 to 9 be also added as accused. The petition is vague. It appears that he has filed this petition with some other motives, he has been seeking adjournments even on the ground that, against an order of issuing fresh notice, he has approached the Apex court. It is high time that such persons are discouraged, and they are not allowed to waste the Courts time. ( 6 ) THE petitioner is a habitual litigant and he appears as party-in-person and tries to rouse the Courts sympathy. On earlier occasion, I have found him misusing the process of this Court. I also advised him to take help from the Legal Aid Board, if he so desires. He has declined the same and submitted that the process is cumbersome. The fact remains that he had never applied to the Board for legal assistance. It clearly shows that the petitioner is not a genuine person in distress. He has been abusing the process of this Court and adopts a practice of unnecessarily harassing the officials of various departments by taking up the matters to the High Court. ( 7 ) THIS is the experience of the other brother Judges of this Court as well. An order of this Court (Coram: R. Balia, J.) dated 14-12-1996 passed in Misc. Criminal application No. 2133/96 has been brought to my notice, which clearly indicates that the Brother Judge R. Balia, had also the same experience with respect to the present petitioner. In the said case, Brother Judge r. Balia, while rejecting the petitioners petition, has directed the Registry of this court that whenever the petitioner prays for appearing in person in any matter, the order of that Court dated 14-12-1996 may be placed before the said Court. ( 8 ) I have found that there is a growing tendency amongst some people to appear as party-in-person with a view to rouse the sympathy of the Court and to harass the respondents. ( 8 ) I have found that there is a growing tendency amongst some people to appear as party-in-person with a view to rouse the sympathy of the Court and to harass the respondents. They are not interested in final outcome of the case and they try to keep the matters pending. They are also in habit of filing frivolous applications before this court. ( 9 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 9887/ 94 filed by one Sultanali Vohra, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in case of mithleshkumar Sinha v. Returning Officer reported in AIR 1984 SC 309 , wherein the practice of filing of the petitioner by party- in-person and abusing the process has been deprecated, this Court directed not to register the petitions of the said Sultanali Vohra, unless the application is accompanied by a certificate of a lawyer that the petition is bona fide and it involves an arguable question of facts and law. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid, while rejecting this Criminal Miscellaneous Application, i am constrained to adopt the same course which I have adopted in Special civil Application No. 9887/94 referred to above and direct the Registry of this Court that, if any application is filed by the present petitioner-Yashodhar Omkarlalji jain as a party-in-person, the same shall not be registered, unless it is accompanied by a valid certificate from a lawyer who is regularly appearing before this Court to the effect that the application made by the applicant is bona fide and it involves arguable question of facts and law so that, if necessary, the Court may request the certifying lawyer to assist the Court. ( 11 ) THIS Criminal Revision Application is accordingly rejected with the aforesaid directions. Application rejected. .