JUDGMENT : Rajul Bhargava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to direct the Court below to consider the bail application of the applicant on the same day in Complaint Case No. 1024 of 2016 under Sections 193, 420, 465, 468, 120-B IPC, Police Station Bardah District Azamgarh. 3. Before entering into the facts and circumstances as well as merits of the case, it is germane to mention here the background and the manner in which the applicant has with impunity approached this Court by moving repeated applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for seeking different reliefs. 4. The brief facts, are that the applicant is a Lekhpal in Revenue Department District Azamgarh and he along with the Pradhan of village Bhagwanpur and other accused committed forgery in the revenue records pertaining to Gata No. 33 of 1419 Fasli by making wrong entries therein in order to cause wrongful loss and harassment to the complainant. In this connection, the complainant Shivashray Rai lodged first information report against the applicant and others. The Investigating Officer submitted a final report against the accused, thereafter the complainant filed the protest petition which was treated as a complaint case by the trial Court and after recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. the applicant and other accused were summoned under Sections 193, 420, 465, 468, 120-B IPC by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh vide order dated 18.6.2016. 5. The applicant and other four accused challenged the summoning order dated 18.6.2016 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate in complaint case under the aforesaid sections vide Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 20217 of 2016. This Court vide order dated 26.7.2016 refused to quash the proceedings of complaint case and also the summoning order holding that prima facie there was sufficient material on record to constitute an offence in which the accused were summoned. It is pertinent to note that the applicant and other four accused despite issuance of warrants did not appear before the concerned Court and moved an application for discharge under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. without submitting themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court. It may be noted that no such direction or liberty was granted to them by this Court while dismissing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 26.7.2016. It may be noted that no such direction or liberty was granted to them by this Court while dismissing the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on 26.7.2016. 6. It appears that the Magistrate before whom the application under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. was moved, was impressed by the fact that such an application can be filed by the accused claiming discharge at any stage and, therefore, without requiring the accused to surrender and obtain bail rejected the application considering the entire material on record vide order dated 6.10.2016. The applicant and other accused challenged the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated 6.10.2016 in Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 33682 of 2016 which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 21.12.2016 with the following observations:- "There appears no justification or propriety to grant relief under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by this Court through present application when, for the same relief earlier applications of applicants have been decided, by which reliefs sought were declined. Therefore, there is no reason to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid complaint case or to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the court below." 7. After the dismissal of Section 482 Cr.P.C. petition, the applicant still did not surrender and the Chief Judicial Magistrate issued warrants on 13.12.2016 and thereafter also initiated proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. and also issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. In pursuance thereof some of the accused were arrested by the Police and were produced before the Court. However, the applicant being Government servant somehow managed to abscond and the warrants could not be executed. 8. The applicant in his evil design again filed the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the relief claimed as noted above. The contents of paragraph 2 of the affidavit filed by him are quoted as under:- "That this is the first application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court. No other application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed, or is pending before this Hon'ble Court for the reliefs claimed in this application." 9. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the applicant very innocently made a prayer that the bail application of the applicant be considered on the same day as noted above, without disclosing in his arguments the earlier two petitions already filed by the applicant have been dismissed on merits. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the applicant very innocently made a prayer that the bail application of the applicant be considered on the same day as noted above, without disclosing in his arguments the earlier two petitions already filed by the applicant have been dismissed on merits. It may be noted that in paragraphs 7 & 9 there is certainly a reference of the earlier rejections by this Court. However, the fact remains that the learned counsel has in paragraph 2 categorically stated that this is the first application of the applicant before this Hon'ble Court and no other application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. The said clause of the affidavit sworn by the applicant on the basis of his personal knowledge. 10. In the light of the aforesaid and perusal of the record reveals, that the applicant at every stage attempted to thwart course of justice and exactly it is a case of corruption and forgery, he has approached this Court repeatedly for the same relief. Though couched in other words and on one hand mentioning that this is first application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on one hand and at the time of argument not disclosing the fact of filing of earlier petition thus, on the face of the record according to the applicant himself he is guilty of prevarication and filing of successive applications suppressing relevant and important information from this Court. His whole conduct is that of an unfair litigant. I may record that in view of such unscrupulous litigants, the dockets of this Court is flooded with such types of insalubrious practice resorted to by unscrupulous litigants and, therefore, such type of instant application should be dismissed with heavy cost as the applicant has forfeited his right to have any sympathetic consideration. The act of applicant by filing repeated applications is nothing but an abuse of process of this Court repeatedly and it also undermines the majesty and authority of this pious institution and any body who smudge it does not deserve any sympathy. 11. In view of it, the applicant without making fair disclosure of filing of earlier applications is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. 12. In view of the above, this application stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. 11. In view of it, the applicant without making fair disclosure of filing of earlier applications is not entitled for any relief whatsoever. 12. In view of the above, this application stands dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) imposed on the applicant to be realized by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, by any legal course available to him under the law. Chief Judicial Magistrate is also directed to take all possible coercive steps against the applicant for his arrest and procuring his attendance for facing the trial. 13. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh for necessary compliance.