Judgment 1. This criminal writ application is for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to send a report from the Institution Record as to how many cases have been filed by the private respondent, Sudhir Prasad, respondent No. 4, against the petitioner and others from 1991 till date alongwith status report and further direction to respondent No. 4 to restrict his hands to engage in vexatious litigations against the petitioner and other persons to save the wastage of courts valuable and precious time and also a direction to the A.C.J.M., Barh to prosecute respondent No. 4, Sudhir Prasad, for the offences mentioned in Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code and/or any other appropriate direction/commands in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The main questions which have been raised in the writ petition are as follows: (i) Whether a litigant has unrestricted hands to waste the Courts valuable and precious time by filing cases for the same cause of action repeatedly? (ii) Whether the filing of repeated criminal and civil cases for same cause of action against a person is violative of Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India? (iii) Whether the Constitution of India gives guarantee to a citizen that he/she shall not be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once? (iv) Whether the action of respondent No. 4 amounts to offence of fabricating evidence and liable for punishment under Chapter XI of the I.P.C.? (v) Whether the conduct of respondent No. 4 is to be deprecated and to be declared as misuse of justice? 3. It has been submitted that the private respondent is a shrewd litigant and is in habit of filing vexatious litigations either by way of complaint petition in the court or by lodging F.I.R. on totally false allegations, misusing the process of justice by filing misconceived and frivolous petition/cases against the petitioner, his family members, revenue authorities, survey authorities and also other co-villagers. Respondent No. 4 has filed as many as six complaint cases for the same cause of action against the petitioner; his family members using almost same set of witnesses. Besides this, he has also filed as many as more than eight complaint cases against different persons to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner. Respondent No. 4 has filed as many as six complaint cases for the same cause of action against the petitioner; his family members using almost same set of witnesses. Besides this, he has also filed as many as more than eight complaint cases against different persons to the best of the knowledge of the petitioner. He has also filed several revenue cases and title suit for the one and same relief against the petitioner and his family members. The details of the cases instituted by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner and others have been given in the writ petition. Respondent No. 4 filed a Complaint Case No. 403C/02 on 12.10.2002 against the petitioner and others in the Court of learned A.C.J.M., Barh alleging forgery in four sale deeds dated 15.7.1912, 6.4.1929, 2.1.1917 and 10.1.1948. He prolonged with that case for four years and ultimately the said Complaint Case was dismissed at the enquiry stage on 13.2.2006. Respondent No. 4 filed second complaint case in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh on 26.10.2002 being Complaint Case No. 419 C of 2002 against the petitioner for the same above mentioned allegation of forgery in the above sale deeds. The above complaint case is still pending. The third case filed by respondent No. 4 before the A.C.J.M., Barh in Complaint Case No. 328C of 2003 on 11.9.2003 against the co-sharer of the petitioner on same false allegation of forgery in the sale deeds. This case was dismissed on 18.9.2003. The fourth case filed by respondent No. 4 is Complaint Case No. 339C/03 on 20.9.2003 before the A.C.J.M., Barh against the above mentioned co-sharer with the same allegation of forgery in title documents. However, this case was dismissed on same day with observation that no criminal liability can be fixed. 4. It has been submitted that after four months of the aforesaid dismissal, when the Presiding Officer was transferred, he filed Complaint Case No. 44C of 2004 against the aforesaid co-sharer and also against the petitioner. This case was filed on 19.2.2004 and the new Presiding Officer without knowing the previous history has referred the complaint petition under Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. to Police for institution of F.I.R. and investigation. This case was filed on 19.2.2004 and the new Presiding Officer without knowing the previous history has referred the complaint petition under Section 156(2) Cr.P.C. to Police for institution of F.I.R. and investigation. However, the police on verifying the record and during the investigation, it was found that for similar allegations above referred Complaint Case 328C was earlier filed by the same complainant (respondent No. 4) which stood dismissed by the Court. The Police has also reported that the matter relates to civil dispute relating to land and the complainant has tried to implicate falsely. 5. It is further submitted that in spite of the police report, the complaint petition was transferred under Section 192 Cr.P.C. for enquiry before the Magistrate. It is submitted that after examining the complaint as well as the enquiry witnesses, the learned Magistrate dismissed the said complaint vide order dated 28.2.2006 observing that the matters relate to civil dispute. 6. The private respondent No. 4 again filed Complaint Case No. 69C of 2004 in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh for same allegation against the petitioner and his brothers. This complaint case was filed on 21.2.2004 as the complainant after filing the complaint case took no step. It is submitted that out of the above referred six complaint cases, five have been dismissed and only one case bearing Complaint Case No. 419C of 2002 is pending at enquiry stage before Shri Jivan Lal, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class. 7. The petitioner apprehends that few other false and vexatious cases may be filed by respondent No. 4 as he has disclosed the same to his relatives and villagers. In civil side also respondent No. 4 has already filed a Title Suit No. 20 of 2002 on 19.8.2002 in the Court of the learned Munsif, Barh against the petitioner and co-sharers. He also attempted for an order of interim injunction which was dismissed on 2.9.2003. It is submitted that in spite of pendency of the above title suit, respondent No. 4 again filed a separate Title Suit No. 17 of 2004 on 17.4.2004 which is also pending. The name of the petitioner is given in both the title suits. Respondent No. 4 has adopted the method of filing false criminal cases as well as civil cases only after he already lost all his remedies before the Revenue Courts in various mutation cases and the appellate stage. The name of the petitioner is given in both the title suits. Respondent No. 4 has adopted the method of filing false criminal cases as well as civil cases only after he already lost all his remedies before the Revenue Courts in various mutation cases and the appellate stage. The respondent No. 4 is an Advocates Clerk and he is in habit of dragging the innocent persons like the petitioner and others in false and frivolous cases in order to pressurize and get his affairs settled. The petitioner gave details of eight such cases filed by respondent No. 4 against innocent persons during 1998 to 2004. Details of those cases are as follows: (1) Complaint Case No. 311(C) of 98 dated 1.9.98 filed in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh. (2) Complaint Case No. 350(C) of 99 dated 13.8.99 filed in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh. (3) Complaint Case No. 447(C) of 02 dated 7.11.02 filed in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh. (4) Complaint Case No. 471(C) of 02 dated 23.11.02 filed in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh. (5) Complaint Case No. 63(C) of 05 dated 8.2.05 filed in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh. (6) Complaint Case No. 335(C) of 05 dated 20.6.05 filed in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh. (7) Complaint Case No. 373(C) of 05 dated 5.7.05 filed in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh. (8) Complaint Case No. 63(C) of 04 dated 19.2.2004 filed in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh. 8. It is indicated that after exhausting his remedy in revenue cases in March, 2002, the private respondent No. 4 started filing repeated false complaint cases as mentioned above. It has been submitted that no litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Every access to justice should not be misused as a license to file misconceived and frivolous cases. It is submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court has already deprecated filing of frivolous and misconceived cases. It has been also submitted that it is necessary for the ends of justice to restrict the hands of respondent No. 4 and his family members including the brothers, father, mother who are always cited as witnesses, to engage in this kind of vexatious litigations. It has been also submitted that it is necessary for the ends of justice to restrict the hands of respondent No. 4 and his family members including the brothers, father, mother who are always cited as witnesses, to engage in this kind of vexatious litigations. It is further submitted that if respondent No. 4 and his family members are restricted as such, that will save the wastage of Courts valuable time and misuse of judicial process. It is submitted that guaranteed right of the petitioner is being infringed at the hands of respondent No. 4. Hence a prayer has been made to restrict respondent No. 4 to indulge in vexatious and false litigation against the petitioner and others to save the wastage of Courts valuable and precious time. 9. Respondent No. 4 made appearance in the court and both the parties were heard. 10. The contents of this criminal writ application indicate volume of cases instituted by respondent No. 4 against the petitioner and others. In this connection reports were called for regarding the details of police cases filed by respondent No. 4 from the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Patna, the Officer-in-Charge, P.S. Pandarak, District Patna and also Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Civil Courts, Barh. The Superintendent of Police (Rural), Patna vide letter dated 18.8.2007 indicated that respondent No. 4 instituted following police cases: (i) Pandarak P.S. Case No. 82 of 2000 dated 1.9.2000. (ii) Pandarak P.S. Case No. 21 of 2001, dated 1.4.2001. (iii) Pandarak P.S. Case No. 19 of 2003 dated 22.2.03. (iv) Pandarak P.S. Case No. 18 of 2005 dated 6.2.2005. 11. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh, vide letter dated 9.10.2007 has given the following details of the cases filed by respondent No. 4, Sudhir Prasad in the Court of A.C.J.M., Barh: (i) 03(C)/97 Sudhir Pd. vs. Kedar Pd. Sharma & Ors. (ii) 311(C)/98 (iii) 350(C)/99 " " Arjun Mahato & Ors: (iv) 89(C)/2000 " " Reena Devi & Ors. (v) 403(C)/2002 " " Bharat Pd. Singh & Ors. (vi) 419(C)/02 " " Atul Kr. Agarwal & Ors. (vii) 447(C)/02 " " Kedar Pd. Sharma & Ors. (viii) 471(C)/02 (ix) 328(C)/02 " " Bharat Pd. Singh & Ors. (x) 339(C)/03 (xi) 44(C)/04 " " Atul Kr. Agarwal & Ors. (xii) 63(C)/04 " " v Arjun Mahto & Ors. (xiii) 69(C)/04 " " Alok Kumar Agrawal & Ors. (xiv) 414(C)/04 " " Asha Devi & Ors. Agarwal & Ors. (vii) 447(C)/02 " " Kedar Pd. Sharma & Ors. (viii) 471(C)/02 (ix) 328(C)/02 " " Bharat Pd. Singh & Ors. (x) 339(C)/03 (xi) 44(C)/04 " " Atul Kr. Agarwal & Ors. (xii) 63(C)/04 " " v Arjun Mahto & Ors. (xiii) 69(C)/04 " " Alok Kumar Agrawal & Ors. (xiv) 414(C)/04 " " Asha Devi & Ors. (xv) 63(C)/05 " " Atul Kr. Agarwal & Ors. (xvi) 335(C)/05 " " Ram Nandan Mahato & Ors. (xvii) 373(C)/05 " " Ariun Mahto & Ors. 12 It may be mentioned here that above cases are covered in the reports of the Superintendent of Police (Rural) and also Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barh. 13. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 4. However, on behalf of respondent No. 4 it has been submitted that such complaint cases and also the police cases were not frivolous in nature. 14. Attention has been drawn towards (1996)5 SCC page 533. Learned counsel for the petitioner laid emphasis on the observation of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Budhi Kota Subbarao V/s. K. Parasaran and Others, aforesaid, that no litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a license to file misconceived or frivolous petitions. It has already been indicated above in the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner that various complaint cases and also police cases have been filed on the same cause of action and this amounts to vexatious litigation indulged in by the aforesaid private individual. The history of various cases have been detailed to show how the applicant filed one petition after another, thanks to the permissiveness of the present judicial system, even after order of dismissal of complaint or the police case have been passed. It has been submitted by the petitioner that his prosecution is illegal and unjustified in the manner as done by respondent No. 4. 15. It has been submitted by the petitioner that his prosecution is illegal and unjustified in the manner as done by respondent No. 4. 15. Since it has been contended and the aforesaid instances in the writ petition have been given, considering the submission with the details thereof that respondent No. 4 is in the habit of filing false and vexatious cases against the petitioner and his family members and others to get the affairs settled in the manner as he wishes the court below by fabricating evidence, upon an application made to it on this behalf, the court below shall make an enquiry whether the offence or offences punishable under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code appear to have been prima facie committed by respondent No. 4 abovenamed, the court below shall for the purpose shall institute a separate proceeding against respondent No. 4 in pending complaint case no. 419(C) of 2002 to find out whether any offence under above Chapter is prima facie made out against respondent No. 4 and proceed according to law, both parties shall be at liberty to make their respective contentions by filing their documents or leading evidence in the aforesaid separate proceeding citing references of aforesaid cases instituted by respondent No. 4 in the court below, concerned court in course of enquiry, shall find out whether access to justice has been misused as a license to file misconceived and frivolous petitions by respondent No. 4 by repeating the same cause of action thereby resulting in fabricating the same and identical evidence. In the aforesaid separate proceeding in the proceeding of Complaint Case No. 419(C) of 2002 ,which is pending before the learned A.C.J.M., Barh, the Court below shall proceed in accordance with law under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. in the manner indicated therein and shall also pass orders in accordance with law. 16. With the aforesaid observation criminal writ petition is disposed of.