Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is a text book example to show as to how the process of the Courts could be abused and proceedings could be dragged on endlessly. ( 2 ) THE petitioners are the accused in C. C. No. 6269 of 1989 on the file of XIV. Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras, on the complaint filed against them for the offences under Sections 409 and 420 I. P. C. (i) This complaint was entertained by the lower Court on 16-5-1989. On service of summons the petitioners made a first appearance before the lower Court on 2 1-6-1989 and received the copies. (ii) Without facing the trial in the said proceedings, the petitioners rushed to this Court and filed an application for quashing in Cr1. M. P. No. 5296 of 1990 under Section 482 Cr. P. C. after hearing the parties this Court ultimately dismissed the petition by order dated 16-1-1991. Thereafter, the petitioners took up the matter before the Apex Court in S. L. P. No. 81 of 1991, which was also dismissed by the, Supreme Court by its order dated 241- 1992. (iii) Thereafter, on 31-3-1992, the trial commenced before the lower Court. P. W. 1 was examined in chief, through whom Exs. P 1 to P 6 were marked. The case was adjourned for further evidence to 5-5-1992, thereafter to 46-1992. In the mean time, the petitioners filed an application for discharge before the lower Court. (iv) During the pendency of this petition, the petitioners again filed a petition in the High Court in Cr1. O. P. No. 8031 of 1992, under Section 482 Cr. P. C. and once again the proceedings were stayed. It was pending for nearly three years. When this matter was coming up for final hearing on 23-4-1995, learned counsel for the petitioners sought permission of this Court, to withdraw the said petition. Accordingly, on such permission being granted, the said Cr1, O. P. No. 8031 of 1992, was dismissed as withdrawn. The trial before the lower Court, once again commenced and P. W. 1 was further examined and Exs. P7 to P 11 were marked. (v) At this stage, the petitioners insisted the Magistrate for the order to be passed, in the application for discharge earlier filed, before the lower Court. The trial before the lower Court, once again commenced and P. W. 1 was further examined and Exs. P7 to P 11 were marked. (v) At this stage, the petitioners insisted the Magistrate for the order to be passed, in the application for discharge earlier filed, before the lower Court. Therefore, the learned Magistrate, again heard both the parties, on the said petition, and dismissed the same. Against this dismissal order, the petitioners filed a revision before the Sessions Court, Madras in Cr1. R. C. No. 156 of 1995. (vi) At the time of final disposal, when the Sessions Court was brought to the notice of all these earlier proceedings, the Sessions Court dismissed the petition on merits, after observing that it was a vexatious and filed only with a view to dragon the proceedings, and the Sessions Judge, further directed the petitioners for their appearance on 29-2- 1996, before the lower Court, to face the trial, and directed the lower Court, to complete the trial on or before 30-4-1996. (vii) Even after the dismissal order and direction by the Sessions Court, to finish the trial within the specified date, the petitioners, instead of facing the trial, in compliance with the orders of the Sessions Court, filed another petition in Cr1. M. P. No. 108 of 1996, before the lower Court, for discharge under Section 245 (2) Cr. P. C. (viii) This application was filed on 1-3-1996. The ground urged in this petition is that the private complaint was filed by the two complainants and the same was not maintainable in law, and as such, they are entitled to be discharged. This application was contested by the respondents herein, by filing a counter, stating that though in the cause title, it is mentioned as complainants 1 and 2, the body of the complaint would show the 2nd complainant as the actual complainant, being a company, which is represented by its Assistant Manager, who is mentioned as the first complainant, and that therefore, this should be treated as a private complaint filed by one person, viz, the 2nd complainant. ( 3 ) ON consideration of the entire materials, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition, holding that the averments of the complaint and other materials would show that the second complainant being a company is the real complainant who is represented by the Assistant Manager, whose name mentioned as a first complainant. ( 3 ) ON consideration of the entire materials, the learned Magistrate dismissed the petition, holding that the averments of the complaint and other materials would show that the second complainant being a company is the real complainant who is represented by the Assistant Manager, whose name mentioned as a first complainant. While holding this, the learned Magistrate also referred about the earlier attempts made by the petitioners to dragon the proceedings for a very long time. Being aggrieved over this order the petitioners in the fourth round have come to this forum under the guise of challenging the impugned order. ( 4 ) LET me at the outset mention, that the point urged in the discharge petition, as referred above has no substance. The materials available before the Court at this stage, when the discharge application has been filed by the petitioners are not only the complaint, sworn statement but also the deposition of P. W. 1, and Exs. P1 to P11. A reading of these materials would clearly show the complainant is M/s Tata Iron and Steel Company, rep. by Anjan Kumar Bhaduri, its Assistant Manager. As such, the cause of action, as alleged in the complaint and other materials is only with reference to the company, the actual complainant. Therefore, the question of joint complaint having been filed, as alleged in this case, does not arise at all. Even in paragraph 2 of the complaint, it is mentioned that the 2nd complainant (the company) is represented by its Assistant Manager Anjan Kumar Bhaduri. Though in the cause title, it is mentioned as complainants 1 and 2 it must be taken to mean, in view of the averments in the body of the complaint sworn statement, deposition and exhibits that the complaint was not a joint complaint but it is a complaint by the Company, through its Assistant Manager. Therefore, the citations referred to by learned counsel for the petitioners, C. S. Desai v. B. Paul Abrao and R. Krishnamurthy and another v. M. P. Raja and another would not apply to this case. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances. I do not find any justifiable reason to accept the contention raised in this revision. In my view the lower Court has given correct reasons to dismiss the petition. ( 5 ) IN these circumstances. I do not find any justifiable reason to accept the contention raised in this revision. In my view the lower Court has given correct reasons to dismiss the petition. ( 6 ) AS indicated earlier, it is quite shocking and surprising to see the conduct of the petitioners who have driven the respondents/complainant from pillar to post, without allowing the learned Magistrate to go on with trial. Before the commencement of trial the petitioners came to High Court and obtained stay in the revision, which was pending for about two years. Again the matters, was taken to Supreme Court where the petitioners were able to dragon the matter for one year. Then after the commencement of the trial on 31-3-1992 he filed a petition for discharge before the lower Court and thereby he stalled the trial for some period. ( 7 ) EVEN without getting an order on the said petition from the lower Court, again came to the High Court, and filed an application for quashing and the trial was stayed for about 3 years. However, at the final disposal the learned counsel did not think it fit to argue the matter, but got permission for withdrawing the said petition. So, ultimately the petitioner succeeded in getting the trial stayed, by getting the quashing application pending before this Court, for three years. Then again after some progress in the trial the petitioners insisted some orders to be passed in the earlier discharge petition, for the best reasons known to them. Accordingly the said discharge petition, which was already pending was disposed of by the court dismissing the prayer. ( 8 ) THIS order was taken up to Sessions Court, again obtained stay in the revision. At the time of final disposal, as referred to earlier, on knowing the chequered history of the case, the learned Sessions Judge, dismissed the petition as vexatious. The Sessions Court also directed the lower Court, to complete the trial on or before 30-41996. At this stage the petitioners having again inclined to stall the proceedings filed a petition for discharge, probably to get another dismissal order, to enable the petitioners to come to this court and obtain an order of stay again. As a matter of fact, they have succeeded in that attempt also, in having stalled the proceedings before the lower Court, for another one year. As a matter of fact, they have succeeded in that attempt also, in having stalled the proceedings before the lower Court, for another one year. So, the complaint filed in the year 1989 has been successfully dragged on even though trial had already commenced, for about eight years. ( 9 ) IT is also to be borne in mind at this stage that in these applications the petitioners never mentioned about the earlier proceedings. The history of the proceedings as seen earlier would indicate that the petitioners, somehow or other wanted to avoid the proceedings, by filing one or other either in trial Court, or in Sessions Court or in High Court or in Supreme Court. This conduct, in my view is highly deplorable and deserved to be condemned. Therefore, I am of the opinion that imposition of the sufficient costs would meet the ends of justice in view of the fact, that the respondents had been sufficiently suffered and humiliated by the filing of the vexatious petitions, one after another, by the petitioners in some forum or other. ( 10 ) IN the light of the above circumstances, I direct the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs. 5. 000/- (Five Thousand only) to the respondents towards costs on or before 7-7-1997 and after obtaining the voucher for accepting the same by the respondents the petitioners are directed to file the same before the lower Court. The trial Court is also directed to take up the case, immediately on communication of this order, and dispose of the matter within one month from the said date. ( 11 ) WITH the above directions, the revision is dismissed. Consequently, Cr1. M. P. is also dismissed. Revision dismissed with cost Rs. 5,000/--as found an abuse of Court Process.