ORDER : I - FACTS OF THE CASE The present Criminal Contempt Petition is filed by the complainants under the provisions of Article 215 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seeking the following reliefs: i) Take cognizance of the offence of criminal contempt committed by the accused persons under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; ii) Pass orders imposing appropriate punishment against the accused persons under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, for committing the acts of criminal contempt; iii) Restrain and injunct the accused and other group companies of the 1st accused from initiating or proceeding with any legal proceedings against the complainants and the complainants' group before any Court, Tribunal, authority, or forum. 2. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the present Criminal Contempt Petition, while passing the order dated 06.07.2021 observed that the learned single Judge while disposing off W.P.No.172/2021 filed by the first accused, by the Order dated 12.02.2021, at paragraph 27 recorded the finding as under: " Thus, there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action as held in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2008)1 SCC 560 , this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same. " It was further observed that, challenging the said Order dated 12.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.172/2021, the first accused preferred Writ Appeal No.307/2021 and the Division Bench, by the judgment dated 25.03.2021, at paragraph 18, observed as under: " In the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law. The appellant has been unsuccessful on almost about nine occasions by filing the frivolous proceedings. Therefore, the learned single Judge was justified in imposing the exemplary costs while dismissing the writ petition. The learned single Judge has also observed that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action and this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same ." (underline supplied) 3. The learned single Judge has also observed that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action and this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same ." (underline supplied) 3. Though accused Nos.2 and 3 contended that, challenging the aforesaid order they preferred Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to substantiate the said fact, no material has been produced by them before this Court. 4. This Court, considering all the contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, passed a detailed Order dated 23.12.2021 holding that the complainants have made out a case to frame Charges against accused Nos.2 and 3 and accused have not made out any case to drop the proceedings and discharge them in the facts of the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, this Court opined that it is a fit case to frame Charge against accused No.2(R.Subramanian/party-in-person) and accused No.3 who is also representing accused No.1- 'India Awake for Transparency'. The said Order has reached finality. II - CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST ACCUSED NOS.2 AND 3 5. This Court by the Order dated 23.12.2021 framed the Charge against accused No.2 (R.Subramanian/party-in-person), and accused No.3 (P.Sadananda), which reads as under: CHARGE We, Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, do hereby charge you, accused No.2/Partyin-Person named below:- Mr. R. Subramanian, Son of G.S. Ramaswami, Aged about 54 years, Advocate and Authorised Representative of India Awake for Transparency Private Limited, Shristhi Crescendo, 24, Desika Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Also at No.2/583, singaravelan road, Chinna Neelangarai, Chennai - 600 115. and at Plot no. 179, H.No. 12-11-1595/12 Lalitha Nagar Colony, Hyderabad - 500 044. as follows:- That you being an authorised signatory and an advocate of a non-existing company-accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency Pvt. Ltd.,' (Formerly 'India Awake for Transparency') has a played dual role between 23.4.2016 and 7.12.2020 and have filed repeated number of frivolous writ petitions, writ appeals, criminal petitions, original side appeals against the complainants and others. This act of you playing a dual role and suppressing facts amounts to abuse of process of law. This act of you playing a dual role and suppressing facts amounts to abuse of process of law. You, inspite of dismissal of all writ petitions on the same cause of action and despite of warning and prohibition by the orders of the Court, filed several cases and continued the proceedings and your conduct is nothing but a daring ride on the Court and you have made a mockery of the judicial process by filing one or the other frivolous legal proceedings, not only affecting the interest of public at large, but also interfering with the administration of justice by misusing the forum of various Courts, wasting judicial time and abusing the process of law. Thereby amounting to criminal contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, within the cognizance of this Court. Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2021. Sd/-Judge       Sd/-Judge The plea of accused No.2 to the Charge is as under: PLEA Question: Have you heard the charge now read over and explained to you? Answer : Yes Question: Do you plead guilty or have you any defence to make? Answer : Not pleaded guilty. We, Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, hereby certify that the above charge was read over and explained to accused No.2 in the language known to him in our presence and hearing and that the above answer is the true and correct recording of the answer given by the accused on this day the 23rd December, 2021. Sd/-Judge    Sd/-Judge CHARGE We, Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, Judges of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru do hereby charge you, accused No.3 named below: MR. P. SADANAND, S/O PANJALA BIKSHAPATHI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, VOLUNTEER AND AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY PVT. LTD., SHRISTHI CRESCENDO, 24, DESIKA ROAD MYLAPORE, CHENNAI - 600 004 ALSO AT: NO.4-12, MARUTHI NAGAR, MALKAJGIRI HYDERABAD - 500 060 as follows:- That you, the Accused No.3 in the name of non-existing company -accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency Pvt. Ltd.,' (Formerly 'India Awake for Transparency') have filed repeated number of frivolous writ petitions, writ appeals, criminal petitions, original side appeals against the complainants and others. This act of you amounts to abuse of process of law having wasted precious public and judicial time. This act of you amounts to abuse of process of law having wasted precious public and judicial time. You, inspite of dismissal of all writ petitions on the same cause of action and despite warning and prohibition, by the orders of the Court, filed several cases and continued the proceedings and your conduct is nothing but a daring ride on the Court and you have made a mockery of judicial process by filing one or the other frivolous legal proceedings not only affecting the interest of public at large, but also interfering with the administration of justice, by misusing the forum of various Courts, wasting judicial time, thereby amounting to criminal contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act, within the cognizance of this Court. Dated this the 23rd day of December, 2021. Sd/- Judge       Sd/-Judge The plea of accused No.3 to the Charge is as under: PLEA Question: You have heard the charge now read over and explained to you? Answer : Yes Question: Do you plead guilty or have you any defence to make? Answer : Not pleaded guilty We, Justice B. Veerappa and Justice K.S. Hemalekha, hereby certify that the above charge was read over and explained to the accused No.3 in the language known to him in our presence and hearing and that the above answer is the true and correct recording of the answer given by the accused on this day the 23rd December, 2021. Sd/-Judge     Sd/-Judge 6. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note the provisions of Rule 10(vi) of The High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, which reads as under: 10. Hearing of Cases and Trial: (i) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (vi) If the accused pleads not guilty, the case may be taken up for trial on the same day or posted to any subsequent date as directed by the Court. The above provision makes it clear that, if the accused pleads not guilty, the case may be taken up for trial on the same day or may be posted to any subsequent date as directed by the Court. 7. The above provision makes it clear that, if the accused pleads not guilty, the case may be taken up for trial on the same day or may be posted to any subsequent date as directed by the Court. 7. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in respect of the very same parties i.e., in the case of Azim Hasham Premji and another vs. India Awake For Transparency and others in Criminal Appeal Nos.1177-1170/2021, by the Order dated 02.12.2021, laid down six norms to deal with the present proceedings, which reads as under: 1) No further applications will be entertained as interlocutory applications by the Karnataka High Court in the contempt proceedings. 2) If there are still some IAs lying under objections, it will be the responsibility of the respondent to get them cleared and listed on the next date failing which they will stand as dismissed for non-prosecution. 3) In our view, there is no question of agitating the issue of hearing before consent being granted by the Advocate General for initiation of contempt proceedings and this is clearly an obfuscation of the issue seeking to rely on practices of different Courts. 4) Both the parties will be granted half an hour each to make their oral submissions in the matter at hand and can file a short synopsis running into not more than three pages each. It is time the Courts put a time limit to oral submissions. 5) In the present factual scenario which is based on orders passed by Courts from time to time, there is no question of claiming trial in the proceedings. 6) The contempt proceedings would stand concluded in the aforesaid terms and it is for the Karnataka High Court to then take a call on the merits of the matter on which we are not commenting. 8. Thus, as per norm No.(5) stated supra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court waived the compliance of the provisions of Rule 10(vi) of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, therefore, question of conducting the trial in the present proceedings does not arise. It is pertinent to note that the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on this court as well as the parties, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Hence, posted the matter for hearing on main matter. 9. It is pertinent to note that the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is binding on this court as well as the parties, in view of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Hence, posted the matter for hearing on main matter. 9. We have heard the learned Senior counsel for complainants, learned Senior counsel for accused No.3 and, accused No.2/party-in-person, at length. III - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR THE COMPLIANANTS 10. Sri Ganesh.S, learned Senior Counsel for complainant No.1 and Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for complainant Nos.2 and 3, both appearing on behalf of Sri Sandeep Huilgol, learned counsel for the complainant Nos.1 to 3 filed common synopsis as per Annexure-1 in respect of accused No.2 (R.Subramanian/party-in-person) and Annexure-2 in respect of accused No.3 (P.Sadanand), Annexure-3 Order dated 04.01.2022 made in W.P.No.10235/2019 and connected petitions passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature, Madras, and Annexure-4 the Order dated 31.12.2021 passed by XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in C.C.No.25456/2009. 11. Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for complainant Nos.2 and 3 pointed out that, W.P.No.10235/2019 and connected petitions were preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, by 'India Awake for Transparency', assailing the Order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India-respondent No.2 therein, by which, the license issued to the petitioner-accused No.1 Company was revoked/cancelled by virtue of powers under Section 8(6) of the Companies Act, 2013. The learned single Judge, by the Order dated 04.01.2022 dismissed the said writ petitions, holding that, a perusal of the Order passed by the respondent No.2 therein reveals that the shell companies that were forming part of the cartel were dealt with in detail in the anticipatory bail petition filed by one of the Directors of the concern and taking note of the shell companies, the Court had detailed the said companies which were functioning and the holding pattern in the said companies, while dealing with Crl.O.P.No.21449/2015. Thereafter, series of litigations were filed by the petitioner before the Karnataka High Court against respondent No.3-M/s Hasham Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., claiming defalcation of accounts and after detailed hearing, the learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the said writ petition in W.P.No.172/2021 by imposing cost, holding that the petition at the instance of the petitioner is a sheer abuse of process of law. It was further observed that the petitioner also filed O.S.A.No.1/2021 before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court assailing the correctness of the Order passed in Company Application No.185/2016 and the Division Bench, while dismissing the said appeal, observed that the petitioner is indulging in speculative litigation not only by filing this appeal, but repeatedly over the years has been filing litigation before one Court or the other for the same cause of action. Further, the Division Bench also refrained the petitioner from proceeding with filing any proceeding with regard to the amalgamation of three companies before any Court or authority or forum in view of the loss of precious court time under the guise of public interest, which is nothing but an instance of gross abuse of process of law. The Special Leave Petition in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.12031/2020 filed against the said order stood withdrawn by the petitioner. The learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras further observed that, action for criminal contempt has been initiated, suo motu, against the petitioner therein by the Karnataka High Court, which is yet to see the light of the day and stepping into stopping the adjournment spree, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.1177- 1179/2021 (Azim Hasham Premji and another vs. India Awake for Transparency and others-dated 02.12.2021) has deprecated the act of the petitioner in trying to obfuscate the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court by seeking adjournment one way or the other and had framed a time schedule within which the proceedings are to complete. It was further observed that the above facts are narrated to highlight the fact about the modus of the petitioner in initiating litigative process, which are sheer abuse of process of law. 12. It was further observed that the above facts are narrated to highlight the fact about the modus of the petitioner in initiating litigative process, which are sheer abuse of process of law. 12. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that, the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras further observed that, a careful perusal of the Order dated 17.08.2018 reveals that the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, has taken into consideration all the materials including information collected by the SFIO, the Enforcement Directorate, Banks, Income Tax Department, Statutory Auditors, CBI, Commissioner of Service Tax, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and having analysed the said documents, has come to an irrefutable conclusion that the motive behind the formation of the respondent was not fulfilled even after six years of incorporation and its objects are not achieved till date. Accordingly, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that the Order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent therein by virtue of powers provided under Section 8(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, in no manner, suffers from the vice of any illegality and the same deserves to be sustained. 13. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the complainant No.1 herein i.e., Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited had filed C.C.No.25456/2009 under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, on the file of the XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, against Subhiksha Trading Services Limited and others in which R.Subramanian, accused No.2 herein was also accused No.2 in the said proceedings, and by the Order dated 31.12.2021, the learned Magistrate, exercising the powers conferred under Section 255(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, convicted accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.62,63,59,893/- (Rupees sixty two crores sixty three lakhs fifty nine thousand eight hundred and ninety three only). It was further directed that out the said fine amount, complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.62,63,49,893/- (Rupees sixty two crores sixty three lakhs forty nine thousand eight hundred and ninety three only) as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- was ordered to be paid to the State as fine. 14. 14. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chennai, exercising powers under the provisions of Section 8(6) of the Companies Act, 2013, passed the Order dated 17.08.2018, wherein, at paragraph-25, it is ordered as under: "I deem it appropriate to revoke/cancel the license issued to the respondent Company vide licence No.102249 dated 22nd June 2012 with immediate effect and the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, is hereby directed to upload this order into the portal of the respondent Company and direct the company to convert itself into a Non-Section 8 Company within 30 days as well as obtain change of name from the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, to add the words "Private Limited" to its name. It is further directed that in case of default in compliance of the above directions by the company, the Registrar of Companies, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, is directed to effect changes in the master data of the company by adding the words "Private Limited" to its name and to treat the company as a non-section 8 company i.e., a non-Government Private Limited Company, without prejudice to the liability of the Directors of the respondent Company for penal action in terms of Section 8(11) of the Companies Act, 2013". 15. The aforesaid Order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chennai, when challenged by the accused, the learned single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by the Order dated 04.01.2022 passed in W.P.No.10235/2019 and connected petitions, confirmed the said Order dated 17.08.2018. 16. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that, the Company Master Data depicts the name of the Company as "India Awake for Transparency Private Limited". In spite of the same, Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Original Side Appeals were filed by the accused persons showing the company name as "India Awake for Transparency", though the company was not existing after passing of the Order dated 17.08.2018 by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chennai. In spite of the same, Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Original Side Appeals were filed by the accused persons showing the company name as "India Awake for Transparency", though the company was not existing after passing of the Order dated 17.08.2018 by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Chennai. Thereby, a non- existing Company/accused filed litigations on the basis of the resolution passed at the meeting of Board of Directors of 'India Awake for Transparency' on 01.06.2015, wherein, accused No.3- P.Sadanand, among two others was authorized to act jointly or severally to institute, commence, prosecute, file, present, carry on or defend or resist and conduct any complaint including Criminal Complaint, Arbitral proceeding, suit, legal or other proceedings of any kind for recovery or realization of monies or assets to which the Company is entitled to, Company Petitions of all kinds both in respect of matters of the company itself and in respect of those of counter party companies including but not limited to petitions for winding up of debtor companies or in respect of mismanagement and oppression by investee companies, all actions or other proceedings as may be necessary for and on behalf of the company and to defend all forms of legal proceedings and claims including but not restricted to Criminal and Civil proceedings or such other claims including proceedings whether at Company Courts, Company Law Board or before any Courts of law, Tribunals, Police, Arbitral forum, statutory authority or Agency and other law enforcement agencies and to institute, initiate, continue, commence, resist, defend and compromise as necessary in all manner of proceedings before any governmental and statutory authorities and corporations, etc., 17. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that, W.P.No.3635/2020 was filed on 07.02.2020 by 'India Awake for Transparency' which Company was not in existence as on the date of filing of the said writ petition, in view of the Order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that, W.P.No.3635/2020 was filed on 07.02.2020 by 'India Awake for Transparency' which Company was not in existence as on the date of filing of the said writ petition, in view of the Order dated 17.08.2018 passed by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs. At paragraph 50 of the Memorandum of the said writ petition, it is stated by the petitioner-'India Awake for Transparency', that, 'the other defence of the 11th respondent (Mr.A.H.Premji) and his entities is as though the proceedings are mala fide as the petitioner is only a device being used by Mr.R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., had dealings with the 12th respondent (M/s Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited). The petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back, as the said Mr.R.Subramanian is a volunteer of the petitioner and is the very person who has filed the affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's for recall of merger and has appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the petitioner as Advocate of the petitioner. The role of the said person is evidently not suppressed nor in any manner sought to be hidden . Therefore, he would contended that the accused No.2 not only authorized signatory, but also acted as an advocate on dual role which is impermissible. Thereby, this Court framed the Charge in a right prospective. Therefore, the accused persons are liable to be punished for Criminal Contempt. Learned Senior counsel, further, reiterated the averments made in the synospis about the punishment to be initiated against accused Nos.2 and 3. 18. While reiterating the submissions made in the form of synopsis filed on 06.01.2022, learned Senior Counsel contended that the Charges framed against accused No.2 are fully covered by the specific and unequivocal findings of the judgments of this Court in W.P.Nos.12073/2020, 12769/2020, 13838/2020 and 172/2021, W.A.Nos.229/2021, 384/2021, 228/2021 and 307/2021 and Company Application No.185/2016 and OSA No.1/2021, which have been referred to and discussed in detail in the Order dated 23.12.2021. Thereby, accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable for criminal contempt and thereby, charges framed against accused Nos.2 and 3 are proved. 19. Thereby, accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable for criminal contempt and thereby, charges framed against accused Nos.2 and 3 are proved. 19. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainants further contended that, not less than 10(ten) distinct proceedings were filed challenging the legality of the amalgamation of three Azim Premji Group companies with another group company, even though no outside shareholder or creditor was in any way affected. The challenge was on an absolutely frivolous and absurd ground viz., that as the amalgamating companies were shareholders of each other, therefore, all their properties belonged to the Central Government because of "bona vacantia" under Article 296 of the Constitution of India. The Central Government passed an order dated 10.11.2017 and specifically held that the properties of the amalgamating companies did not belong to the Central Government. The Division Bench of this Court, in its judgment dated 25.03.2021 passed in W.A.No.307/2021 specifically held that, after the said Central Government Order dated 10.11.2017, it was not possible to understand how the said amalgamation could possibly be challenged on the ground of bona vacantia. Though the said Central Government Order dated 10.11.2017 was served on the contemnors' advocate, Private Criminal Complaints were filed by the contemnors without disclosing and by suppressing the said Central Government Order dated 10.11.2017 and again alleging that the assets of the amalgamating companies were the properties of the Central Government, because of bona vacantia and that the said amalgamation therefore, constituted criminal breach of trust. As the Central Government Order dated 10.11.2017 was suppressed, the Criminal Court was misled into taking cognizance and issuing summons to the complainants, setting the criminal law in motion against respectable law abiding citizens, by suppressing the facts and by filing completely frivolous complaints and petitions which is the most egregiously reprehensible kind of criminal contempt. 20. It is further contended that there are 42 (forty two) distinct proceedings initiated by 'India Awake for Transparency' against the complainants at the instance of accused No.2, after the complainants initiated prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against accused No.2 and the Company of which he was the Managing Director i.e., Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd., for dishonour of cheques. It is further contended that, accused No.2-R.Subramanian is the Alter Ego of "India Awake for Transparency" in whose name all the various legal proceedings were filed. It is further contended that, accused No.2-R.Subramanian is the Alter Ego of "India Awake for Transparency" in whose name all the various legal proceedings were filed. Licence granted to "India Awake for Transparency" to drop the words "Private Limited" from its name was revoked by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India by an Order dated 17.08.2018, which when challenged by the accused in W.P.No.10235/2019, came to be dismissed by the Order dated 04.01.2022. Filing repeated petitions in the name of non-existing Company-"India Awake for Transparency" without using the words "Private Limited" is nothing but a brazen suppression of identity and impersonation done only with a view to mislead the judiciary. Further, 'India Awake for Transparency' had only four share holders i.e., (i)Analog Financial Services Private Limited, (ii)Analog Stock Broking Services Private Limited, (iii)Intel Registry Services Private Limited, and (iv) Lucky View Home Finance Private Limited. The Madras High Court, by its judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed in Crl.O.P.No.21449/2015, has specifically found that, these four shareholder companies were established and controlled by accused No.2-R.Subramanian. Further, R.Subramanian was appointed as authorized representative of "India Awake for Transparency" vide resolution dated 01.07.2015 and it was continued until December 2020, when the authorization was replaced in the Court records by a vakalathnama in favour of R.Subramanian. Moreover, 3(three) out of the said 4(four) shareholder companies of 'India Awake for Transparency' have been struck off by the Registrar of Companies as being dormant and inactive companies and for non-compliance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The Directors of 'India Awake for Transparency'-Mr. Rajender Kumar and Mrs. Adiseshan Srimathi are disqualified to act as Directors and their appointment as Additional Directors was not regularized in the AGM of 'India Awake for Transparency'. 21. It is further contended that, in every single legal proceeding, R. Subramanian has appeared as an Advocate. 'India Awake for Transparency' is a mere shell company as is clear from its last available balance sheet, as it has no income and negligible expenditure, and does not even possess a bank account. 21. It is further contended that, in every single legal proceeding, R. Subramanian has appeared as an Advocate. 'India Awake for Transparency' is a mere shell company as is clear from its last available balance sheet, as it has no income and negligible expenditure, and does not even possess a bank account. All these indisputable facts on record make it abundantly clear that accused No.2-R.Subramanian is the Alter Ego of 'India Awake for Transparency', that 'India Awake for Transparency' is only a corporate facade used by accused No.2 and that all the legal proceedings filed in the name of 'India Awake for Transparency' are at his behest and instance and are financed and controlled by him, as he is the 'directing mind' of 'India Awake for Transparency'. 22. Learned Senior Counsel for the complainants further contended that, accused No.3-P.Sadanand has verified the pleadings in each of the 42 proceedings filed by 'India Awake for Transparency' against various entities in the WIPRO/Premji group. Accused No.3 is described as a mere 'volunteer' of 'India Awake for Transparency' and not its Employee, Director or Principal Officer. The term 'volunteer' is unknown to law and accused No.3 had no authority in law to verify any pleading on behalf of 'India Awake for Transparency', having regard to the provisions of Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 21 of the Companies Act, 2013. The verification of a large number of pleadings over a period of several years without any authority to do so and thereby becoming a willing instrument in the hands of accused No.2 to commit gross abuse of the legal system, by itself constitutes criminal contempt committed by accused No.3. Therefore, it is a clearly case of joint participation and co-operation, if not conspiracy between accused Nos.2 and 3 to commit criminal contempt of Court in order to wreak vengeance on WIPRO/Premji Group, for filing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, against accused No.2. Accused No.3 has continued to represent as volunteer and filed numerous petitions and applications in the same name, style and capacity even after this Court categorically holding that he is incapable of verifying any pleadings as volunteer, in OSA No.1/2021. It is further contended that there is another distinct and independent reason why the verification of pleadings by accused No.3 in the said 42 proceedings constitutes criminal contempt. It is further contended that there is another distinct and independent reason why the verification of pleadings by accused No.3 in the said 42 proceedings constitutes criminal contempt. The accused No.3 has stated on oath before the Criminal Court that he does not know English or Kannada and that he only knows Telugu. Consequently, it is not possible for him to be acquainted with the pleadings, facts, allegations and contentions raised in each legal proceeding which is in English. Thereby, accused No.3 has interfered with and obstructed the administration of justice and the said act is squarely covered by the definition of 'criminal contempt' under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, sought to allow the contempt proceedings and convict accused Nos.2 and 3 under the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 23. Sri Ganesh.S, learned Senior Counsel for complainant No.1, reiterating the contentions urged by Sri C.V.Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for complainant Nos.2 and 3, contended that, knowingfully well that the licence of the 'India Awake for Transparency' was cancelled and was directed to be named as 'India Awake for Transparency Private Limited' by the Order dated 17.08.2018 of the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, still, in the name of non existing Company, accused Nos.2 and 3 filed several writ petitions, post 17.08.2018. He would further contend that the Orders passed in the Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals and Original Side Appeals, it has been specifically held that the conduct of the accused Nos.2 and 3 amounts to misuse and abuse of process of law and they have filed repeated petitions only to wreak personal vengeance against complainants. He further contended that this Court, while framing Charge, passed a detailed Order dated 23.12.2021 and has considered all the aspects of the matter holding that the complainants have made out a case to frame Charge and accordingly, framed Charge against accused Nos.2 and 3 and the same is in proper perspective and therefore, accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be punished for criminal contempt. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel sought to allow the present Criminal Contempt Petition and to punish accused Nos.2 and 3 in terms of the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. IV - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED No.3 24. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel sought to allow the present Criminal Contempt Petition and to punish accused Nos.2 and 3 in terms of the provisions of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. IV - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL FOR ACCUSED No.3 24. Per contra, Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Shakeer Abbas, learned counsel for accused No.3 contended that withdrawal of W.P.No.3635/2020 and filing of different writ petitions on different cause of action does not amount to abuse of process of Court. He would further contend that the 2nd Charge framed by this Court is not available since, after disposal of the writ petitions, the accused has not filed any writ petition before this Court. He further contended that with regard to first Charge, the accused No.3 is neither the Manager nor Secretary or any other Office Bearer of the accused No.1 Company as stipulated under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Therefore, no criminal contempt is made out against accused No.3. He further contended that after framing of Charge, Rule 11 of The High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981, comes into force and therefore, question of filing synopsis by the complainants and addressing arguments would not arise. Therefore, complainants should not have been allowed to file synopsis and address the arguments. Learned Senior counsel further contended that the averments made against accused No.3 in paragraph 17 of the Memorandum of Criminal Contempt Petition does not amount criminal contempt as contemplated under Section 12(5) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. He further contended that no criminal contempt is made against accused No.3. Mere filing petitions to agitate the rights available to a person will not amount to criminal contempt. The orders passed by the learned single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench have not reached finality, since the same have been subject matters of Special Leave to Appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereby, accused No.3 has not committed any act of contempt of Court. 25. Further, Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for accused No.3, reiterating the averments made in the short synopsis dated 06.01.2022, contended that, accused No.1 was by its articles, a private limited company from its formation in the year 2012. Thereby, accused No.3 has not committed any act of contempt of Court. 25. Further, Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel for accused No.3, reiterating the averments made in the short synopsis dated 06.01.2022, contended that, accused No.1 was by its articles, a private limited company from its formation in the year 2012. Its name would have been 'India Awake for Transparency Private Limited', but however, as it was granted permission to not use 'Private Limited' it was allowed to be called 'India Awake for Transparency'. Every Company is identified in the records of the Registrar of Companies by a CIN i.e., Corporation Identification Number. This is assigned at formation of company and continues till company is struck off from the register of Companies maintained under the Companies Act. When accused No.1 was formed as 'India Awake for Transparency', its CIN was U93000TN2012NPL 087115. After its name was changed to 'India Awake for Transparency Pvt. Ltd.,' also, same CIN continues. If accused No.1 converts to Public Limited Company and becomes 'India Awake for Transparency Ltd.,' then also CIN will be the same. CIN has nothing to do with private/public status or even with Section 8 of the Companies Act, 2013. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that there being no evidence on record to show that accused No.1 is struck off from register of Companies, the Company continues to exist in the eye of law albeit as 'India Awake for Transparency' and goes with the same CIN. Even the cause title of this case itself reflects that it was only a name change of 'India Awake for Transparency'. If the Order dated 17.08.2018 was not to be treated as void, the mistake would be to the extent of not adding the words 'Private Limited' to the name 'India Awake for Transparency' in the cause title. The call to treat the order dated 17.08.2018 as void being that of the client, accused No.2 cannot be at fault for the same as the entity continued to exist and only the manner of representation of its name was in question. 26. Learned Senior counsel for accused No.3 further contended that, there is no issue of existence of accused No.1 raised in any judicial order except in OSA No.1/2021 in which the said findings are made per incurium and are bound to be ignored. 26. Learned Senior counsel for accused No.3 further contended that, there is no issue of existence of accused No.1 raised in any judicial order except in OSA No.1/2021 in which the said findings are made per incurium and are bound to be ignored. It is further contended that, the complainants and their associates have committed serious economic offences and violated the provisions of Companies Act, PMLA, SEBI Act, RBI Act and Income Tax Act and given their clout and influence the matter needed Court monitored multi disciplinary investigation. The issues in respect of the same along with the issue of misappropriation of assets of three companies whose assets were bona vacantia and in the control of the complainants, were the issues raised in PIL filed by accused No.1 in W.P.No.3635/2020, which was dismissed as withdrawn, since the Court held that it was not maintainable. Admittedly, the Order passed in the Writ Petition which was adjudicated on merits is subject matter of Appeal and all the matters are pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits and the question of any proceedings being frivolous would not arise. It is further contended that the entire issues raised in W.P.No.3635/2020 are before the Apex Court in WP(C) No.1079/2021 and WP(C) No.1161/2021. The correctness of the orders in the Writ Appeals and OSA are also before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petitions filed and are pending. The entire Criminal Contempt Proceedings are only malafide proceedings of complainants to try and evade prosecution for their offences and is bound to be dismissed in limine acquitting accused No.3. Therefore, sought to dismiss the Criminal Contempt Petition. Learned Senior Counsel for accused No.3 further submits that, if this Court comes to the conclusion that accused No.3 is found guilty of the Charges levelled against him, accused No.3 tenders unconditional apology and he may be pardoned. 27. In support of his contentions, learned Senior Counsel for accused No.3 relied upon the following judgments: (i) Rajesh Kumar Singh vs. High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench Gwalior reported in (2007)14 SCC 126 , paragraphs 20, 21. (ii) The Bangalore Development Authority by its Commissioner vs. Gururaj and another reported in ILR 2007 KAR 5184, paragraphs 13 to 16. V - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY ACCUSED NO.2/PARTY-IN-PERSON 28. (ii) The Bangalore Development Authority by its Commissioner vs. Gururaj and another reported in ILR 2007 KAR 5184, paragraphs 13 to 16. V - ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY ACCUSED NO.2/PARTY-IN-PERSON 28. Sri R.Subramanian, accused No.2/party-in-person filed short synopsis dated 06.01.2022 and contended that, no document is produced by the complainants to prove that accused No.2 has acted dual role as signatory to accused No.1 and as an advocate. He was authorized by accused No.1 on 01.07.2015 and at that time, he was not enrolled as an advocate and he was not practicing. He was enrolled as an advocate only on 30.12.2015, but he was not acting as advocate to accused No.1 till March/April 2017. In April 2016, when accused No.2 was not acting as advocate to accused No.1, accused No.2 acted as representative of accused No.1 in respect of Company Application No.185/2016 for recall of order of merger dated 26.03.2015 and signed the pleadings and that would not amount to contempt. Accused No.2 further contended that, a firm of advocates were given vakalath to appear in the said C.A.No.185/2016 and they were appearing till December 2020. From December 2020, he started to appear in the said matter, after application to substitute accused No.3 as representative of accused No.1 was filed in C.A.No.185/2016 and the same was made known to the learned Company Judge. In March 2017, when accused No.1 Company wanted to engage him as advocate, accused No.1 was informed that accused No.2 will not be able to act as their authorized representative from then on. The Board Resolution of accused No.1 dated 07.01.2020 filed in C.A.No.185/2016 records the same. 29. Accused No.2 further contended that there is not even a single document on record to show that he did any act as authorized representative of accused No.1 after March 2017, nor any document to show that accused No.2 acted as advocate of accused No.1 before March 2017. As such, the Charge that accused No.2 played dual role from 23.04.2016 till 07.12.2020 is not proved. There is no finding by any Court holding that accused No.2 played dual role from 23.04.2016 to 07.12.2020. The contents of paragraph 50 of W.P.No.3635/2020 only sets out that accused No.2 is a volunteer of accused No.1 and not that he is authorized person of accused No.1. There is no finding by any Court holding that accused No.2 played dual role from 23.04.2016 to 07.12.2020. The contents of paragraph 50 of W.P.No.3635/2020 only sets out that accused No.2 is a volunteer of accused No.1 and not that he is authorized person of accused No.1. The code of conduct only bars persons having executive authority in an organization from acting as its advocate and the same does not apply to members and volunteers. Accused No.2 further contended that mere fact that accused No.1 chose to file substitute application only on 07.12.2020 even though it was notified of the withdrawal of accused No.2 as representative in March 2017, cannot prove the Charge of dual role. It is further contended that the name of accused No.1 would have been 'India Awake for Transparency Private Limited' but, however, as it was granted permission not to use 'Private Limited' it was allowed to be called 'India Awake for Transparency'. He further contended that accused No.1 exists even today. Post 17.08.2018, if the Order of that date was not to be treated as void, the mistake would be to the extent of not adding the words 'Private Limited' to the name 'India Awake for Transparency' in the cause title. But in each proceeding filed, the fact in this regard were duly disclosed and there was no suppression. The call to treat the order dated 17.08.2018 as void being that of the client, accused No.2 cannot be at fault for the same as the entity continued to exist and only the manner of representation of its name was in question. 30. Accused No.2 further contended that there is no issue of existence of accused No.1 raised in any judicial order. The Charge that accused No.2 played dual role and suppressed facts and such act amounts to abuse of process of law, automatically does not survive the position that accused No.2 played no dual role and, no act of suppression by accused No.2 is set out. He further contended that once the role of accused No.2 is limited to that of a pure advocate with no dual role, the scope of dragging him into these proceedings is very limited as it can only be in respect of matters where the advocate can have some direct responsibility as in the case of suppression or scandalous pleadings. He further contended that once the role of accused No.2 is limited to that of a pure advocate with no dual role, the scope of dragging him into these proceedings is very limited as it can only be in respect of matters where the advocate can have some direct responsibility as in the case of suppression or scandalous pleadings. In the present case, there was no repetitive writ petition on same cause of action. In W.P.No.172/2021 it has been erroneously held that the writ petitions are being filed on same cause of action. When the reliefs are different and the main respondent itself is different in each writ petition, the question of there being repetition does not arise at all. He further contended that no proceedings have been adjudicated on merits and as such, question of any proceedings being frivolous would not arise. The entire reason for complainants seeking prayer (c) in the present petition is as they cannot face any proceedings on merit. The learned single Judge and the Coordinate Bench deciding W.A.No.307/2021 erred in not noting that the ratio of Sarguja Transport was wholly inapplicable as it was applicable only to High Courts where Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable to writ petitions and since, in this High Court, Code of Civil Procedure is wholly applicable to writ proceedings, the decision has no relevance. 31. The accused No.2 further contended that absolutely there is no case made out against accused No.2 by the complainants and therefore, sought to drop the entire Criminal Contempt Proceedings on the ground that the entire criminal contempt proceedings are only malafide proceedings of the complainants to try and evade prosecution for their offences and is bound to be dismissed in limine acquitting accused No.2. Further, accused No.2 submits that, if this Court comes to the conclusion that accused No.2 is found guilty of the Charges levelled against him, he tenders unconditional apology and he may be pardoned. VI - POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 32. Further, accused No.2 submits that, if this Court comes to the conclusion that accused No.2 is found guilty of the Charges levelled against him, he tenders unconditional apology and he may be pardoned. VI - POINTS FOR DETERMINATION 32. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the parties as well as accused No.2/Party-inperson, the points that would arise for our consideration in the present Criminal Contempt Petition are as under: (i) Whether the charge levelled against Accused Nos.2 and 3 is proved and that the said accused persons have committed criminal contempt of court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case ? (ii) Whether the Accused Nos.2 and 3 have made out a case to drop the criminal contempt proceedings and discharge them, in the facts and circumstances of the case ? 33. We have given our anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned senior Counsel for the complainants; learned senior counsel for the Accused No.3; and the Accused No.2/party-in-person and perused the material on record carefully. VII - CONSIDERATION 34. It is the specific case of the learned counsel for the complainants that though Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' came into non-existence by the order dated 17.8.2018 passed by the Regional Director under the provisions of Section 8(6) of the Companies Act, still Accused No.3 filed repeated number of writ petitions, writ appeals, wherein Accused No.2/partyin-person was the authorized signatory and representative of Accused No.1, who played dual role of authorized signatory of Accused No.1 - company as well as advocate from 23.4.2016 to 7.12.2020 against the complainants and others. Hence, the conduct of Accused Nos.2 and 3 is nothing but abuse of process of law amounting to criminal contempt. 35. It is the specific case of Accused Nos.2 and 3 that in order to protect public money, certain Writ Petitions were filed in the name of Accused No.1 by Accused No.3 and represented by Accused No.2, contending that the order dated 17.8.2018 passed by the Regional Director (Southern region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs is non-est and without jurisdiction and therefore, the writ petitions, writ appeals, Original Side Appeal filed against the complainants and others, are in the interest of public at large. Accused No.2 has acted only as a counsel on behalf of Accused Nos.1 and 3 to discharge his professional duties. Therefore, they would contend there is no criminal contempt made out against them as alleged. 36. It is an undisputed fact that in the meeting of Board of Directors of 'India Awake for Transparency' dated 1.7.2015, it was resolved that Accused No.2 (R. Subramanian s/o G.S. Ramaswami, residing at No.2/583, Singaravelan Road, 1st cross, Chinna Neelangarai, Chennai) be and is hereby authorized to act on behalf of the company to do all acts in furtherance of its main objects as set out in the Memorandum of Company and for this purpose to do all things necessary including but not limited to the acts there under. The said resolution was only signed by Accused No.2 as authorized signatory to Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency'. 37. It is also not in dispute that the Accused No.2, who is the authorized signatory of Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' filed Company Application No.185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014, which came to be dismissed on 17.3.2021. The cause title of the said company application reads as under: "INDIA AWAKE FOR TRANSPARENCY A NOT FOR PROFIT COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE D-1, SRISHTI CRESENDO, NO.24, DESIKA ROAD, CHENNAI -600004 TAMILNADU, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR. R. SUBRAMANIAN. (BY SRI R. SUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE)" 38. It is also relevant to state at this stage that in Company Application No.185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014, an affidavit filed by Accused No.2/R. Subramanian. The affidavit reads as under: " Affidavit I, R. Subramanian s/o Ramanswamy aged 49 years residing at No.2/583 Singaravelan Road, I Cross Chinna Neelankari, Chennai 600115, now at Bengaluru, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I am the Authorised Singatory of the Applicant Company, and I am conversant with the facts of the case and am able to depose to the matters pertaining thereto. 2. …... 3. ……" 39. The learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the said Company Application No.185/2016 on 17.3.2021, has opined at paragraph 7(n) as under: "7(n) A perusal of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court clearly indicates that the applicant is guilty of abuse of process of law and his conduct disentitles him from any relief in the present petition also. The learned Single Judge of this Court while dismissing the said Company Application No.185/2016 on 17.3.2021, has opined at paragraph 7(n) as under: "7(n) A perusal of the aforesaid orders passed by this Court clearly indicates that the applicant is guilty of abuse of process of law and his conduct disentitles him from any relief in the present petition also. In fact, as noticed by this Court in the earlier orders, the claim of the applicant has been rejected not only by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs but also by the Reserve Bank of India. Under these circumstances also, I am of the considered opinion that the present application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed." 40. It is an undisputed fact that Accused No.1 - Company represented by its authorized signatory - Mr. P. Sadanand/Accused No.3 filed Original Side Appeal No.1/2021 against the order dated 17.3.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Company Application No.185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraphs - 21, 23, 24 25 and 27 specifically held as under; "21. That apart, we find that in the instant case, the application filed by the appellant India Awake for Transparency before the learned Company Judge in Company Application No.185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014 of this court seeking recall of order dated 26.03.2015 was by its authorised signatory, Sri.R. Subramanian, who is also the counsel appearing for the appellant in this appeal. When we queried Sri.R.Subramanian, he stated that he is now appearing as an advocate and Sri.P. Sadanand is the authorised signatory and there is no impediment for him to represent for the appellant/Company. 23. We find considerable force in the submission of learned Senior counsel inasmuch as when a company is seeking to file an appeal or a proceeding, then the Board of Directors of the company has to authorise a person who would verify the pleadings or file the proceeding on behalf of the Company as its authorised signatory at the risk in toto. In the instant case, it is not known as to how a “volunteer” of the appellant-company could have volunteered to verify the pleadings by the verifying affidavit and file this appeal. The status of this volunteer Sri. P.Sadanand vis-a-vis the Company is not known. In the instant case, it is not known as to how a “volunteer” of the appellant-company could have volunteered to verify the pleadings by the verifying affidavit and file this appeal. The status of this volunteer Sri. P.Sadanand vis-a-vis the Company is not known. It is also not known whether he is a shareholder, director or an employee of the company. At any rate, there can be no authorisation for him to volunteer to file this appeal. On this ground also, we find that the appeal filed by the appellant is not in accordance with the legal procedural requirement and hence cannot be entertained. 24. Despite the above circumstances, we have considered the order of the learned Single Judge in light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 and we find that the learned single Judge was justified in dismissing the application filed in Company Application No.185/2016 seeking recall of the order dated 26.03.2015, by which, the scheme of the amalgamation of the three companies with respondent No.1 was sanctioned in Company Petition No.182/2014 as the appellant had no locus standi to file such an application hence, we find no merit in this appeal and the appeal is hence liable to be dismissed. 25. Before parting with this judgment, we would like to remind ourselves that in recent years there has emerged a trend of filing speculative litigation before various courts of law, not just in the Court of first instance, but also in the High Court. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that such speculative litigation is weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing it to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants seeking justice in their cases. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that such speculative litigation is weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing it to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants seeking justice in their cases. We find that this is one stark instance of speculative litigation being filed not just by this appeal, but repeatedly over the years has been stated, filing of litigation has been firstly, before the Court Hon’ble of the Chief Justice in the form of a public interest litigation and thereafter in separate writ petitions on the same cause of action after withdrawing unconditionally the public interest litigation and not being successful in those cases and not being able to get over the order passed by the Union of India, dated 10.11.2017, a litigative mechanism has been devised to indirectly question the said order by way of seeking recall of the order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the learned Company Judge of this Court sanctioning the amalgamation of the three companies with respondent No.1 this is without having any locus standi to do so. 27. But, having regard to the checkered history with regard to this controversy, we refrain the appellant herein, India Awake for Transparency, from filing any proceeding with regard to the amalgamation of the three companies with respondent No.1 herein in future before any Court or authority or forum. We are constrained to pass such an order having regard to the oss of precious public time of this court and other courts by raking up such a controversy by the appellant company, without having any locus standi to do so. The same is an instance of gross abuse of the process of law as well as of this Court." 41. Though learned Senior counsel for Accused No. 3 and Accused No.2/party-in-person submitted that against the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, an SLP has been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no material is produced including the interim order, if any granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 42. Though learned Senior counsel for Accused No. 3 and Accused No.2/party-in-person submitted that against the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, an SLP has been preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no material is produced including the interim order, if any granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 42. It is also not in dispute that Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' represented by its authorized signatory - Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand filed Writ Petition No.3635/2020 (PIL), wherein at paragraph-50 it is specifically stated as under: "The Petitioner further states that the other defence of the 11th Respondent and his entities is as though the proceedings are mala fide as the Petitioner is only a device being used by Mr. R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd had dealings with the 12th Respondent. The Petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back as the said Mr. R.Subramanian is a Volunteer of the Petitioner and is the very person who has filed the Affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's for recall of merger and has appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the Petitioner as Advocate of the Petitioner. The role of the said person is evidently not Suppressed nor in any manner sought to be hidden. The law being well settled that mere claim of mala fide is no defence to a charge founded on evidence the said claims are mere red herring to try and distract the judicial proceedings. The present proceedings are not driven by mala fide but the sheer scale of the fraud got effected with connivance of all who were to protect public interest. The Petitioner states that many scams be it the coal scam or the 2G scam have come to light only through actions of persons adversarial to the persons in power. That such persons would be the watchdogs when regulators fail to act is well recognised. The petitioner states that in any event there is no requirement for it to be a front for any other as what the issues herein can be raised by any one in public interest." (emphasis supplied) The said writ petition came to be dismissed as it was unconditionally withdrawn on 1.10.2020. 43. The petitioner states that in any event there is no requirement for it to be a front for any other as what the issues herein can be raised by any one in public interest." (emphasis supplied) The said writ petition came to be dismissed as it was unconditionally withdrawn on 1.10.2020. 43. It is also not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - company, Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 - Sri R. Subramanian, as its advocate filed one more writ petition in W.P. No.12073/2020. The learned Single Judge of this Court after hearing both the parties while dismissing the said writ petition, has observed at paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 as under: "13. In the PIL, Director of Enforcement was arrayed as respondent No.7. As recorded hereinabove, petitioner had sought for a direction against respondents No. 1 to 10 therein to constitute a multi-Disciplinary Team to investigate and prosecute Mr. Azim Premji and his associates. Prayer clause (i) in this writ petition is for a direction against the against the Enforcement Directorate to register a case for offences of money laundering arising out of the scheduled offences in Special Case No.69/2020. The trial of the said case has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. 14. In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, relied upon by Shri. Nagesh, the Apex Court has held that when some one has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered and he rushes to High Court with a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court should not encourage this practice and ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy. 15. Admittedly, as averred in paragraph No.20 of this writ petition, petitioner has filed a petition under Section 190(1) (c) read with Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special PMLA Court." 44. 15. Admittedly, as averred in paragraph No.20 of this writ petition, petitioner has filed a petition under Section 190(1) (c) read with Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special PMLA Court." 44. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeal No.229/2021 was preferred by the Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency represented by A3 - P. Sadanand as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 - R. Subramanian as its advocate and the Division Bench of this Court by the judgment dated 30th March 2021 while dismissing the writ appeal, has observed at paragraph-9 as under: " The learned Counsel has vehemently argued before this Court that the entire litigation against the respondents makes it clear that there is a deliberate attempt to ensure that the case registered under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not proceed. He has further brought to the notice of this Court that against the order passed by this Court in the matter of amalgamation of companies, a Company Application was preferred i.e. C.A. 185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014 and the same has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.03.2021. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has promoted as many as 49 Companies as observed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in an anticipatory bail application preferred by R. Subramanian. However, the bail petition was dismissed by the Madras High Court vide its order dated 18.09.2015. " (emphasis supplied) 45. It is also not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency, Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 - Mr. R. Subramanian as its advocate filed Writ Petition No.13838/2020. The learned Single Judge of this court dismissed the said writ petition on 8.1.2021, which was the subject matter of Writ Appeal No.228/2021 filed by Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 - Mr. R. Subramanian as its advocate. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing both the parties by the judgment dated 30.3.2021 while dismissing the said writ appeal, has specifically observed at paragraphs 3 and 7 as under: "3. R. Subramanian as its advocate. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing both the parties by the judgment dated 30.3.2021 while dismissing the said writ appeal, has specifically observed at paragraphs 3 and 7 as under: "3. The core issue in the aforesaid writ petition was arising Out of the amalgamation of three companies namely M/s. Vidya Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, M/s. Regal Investment and Trading Company Private Lime and M/s Napean Trading and Investment Company Private Limited and the Present appellant has initially preferred a public interest litigation registered as W.P.No.3635/2020 with a prayer inter alia for issuance of writ of mandamus and a direction to respondents No.1 to 10 therein to constitute a multi disciplinary investigation team to investigate and prosecute Mr.A.H.Premji and his associates for the offences alleged to have been committed by them. The public interest litigation was withdrawn unconditionally. 7. The learned Counsel has vehemently argued litigation against the respondents makes it clear that there is a deliberate attempt to ensure that the case registered under the Negotiable Instruments Act does not proceed. He has further brought to the notice of this Court that against the order passed by, this Court in the matter of amalgamation of companies, a Company Application was preferred i.e. C.A. 185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014 and the same has also been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 17.03.2021.It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has promoted as many as 49 Companies as observed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in an anticipatory bail application preferred by R Subramanian. However, the bail petition was dismissed by the Madras High Court vide its order dated 18.09.2015." 46. According to learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 as well as Accused No.2/party-in-person, against the said judgment, an SLP was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is still pending for adjudication. But, no material produced before this Court in support of the same. 47. According to learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 as well as Accused No.2/party-in-person, against the said judgment, an SLP was preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is still pending for adjudication. But, no material produced before this Court in support of the same. 47. It is also not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency, Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand filed Writ Petition No.12769/2020 (T-IT) and the learned Single Judge of this court by the order dated 26.2.2021 dismissed the said writ petition, which was the subject mater of Writ Appeal No. 384/2021 (T-IT) filed by Accused No.1 represented by Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its advocate, which came to be dismissed on 21.4.2021. It is stated at the Bar by the learned senior advocate for Accused No.3 as well as Accused No.2/party-in-person that against the said order passed by the Coordinate Bench, they have preferred an SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same is pending for consideration, but no documents produced in support of the same. 48. It is also relevant to state that in the name of Accused No.1, Accused No.3 - P. Sadanand filed Writ Petition No.172/2021 before this Court represented by Accused No.2 - Sri R. Subramanian, as its advocate, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court by the detailed order dated 12th February, 2021 dismissed the writ petition with costs of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and specifically observed at paragraphs - 26, 27 and 28 as under: "26. In W.P.No.3635/2020 (India Awake. Transparency Vs. Union of India and others), the PIL filed in this Court, petitioner has sought directions against the respondents therein based on his representation/complaints dated January 30, 2020 and February 3, 2020. Though the dates of complaint is different, the subject matter is again the same i.e., transactions involving three Companies namely Vidya Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd., Regal Investment and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. and Napean Trading and Investment Company Pvt. Ltd. (paragraph No.10 of the writ petition). 27. Thus, there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action. As held in Udyami, this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same. 28. 27. Thus, there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action. As held in Udyami, this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same. 28. In the result, this writ petition is not only devoid of merits, but an absolute abuse of process of law. Though petitioner was forewarned, he chose to argue this writ petition as a stand-alone petition wasting the valuable time of this Court to deal with such frivolous cases. Therefore, imposition of punitive cost is necessary." 49. Against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge, Writ Appeal No.307/2021 was preferred in the name of Accused No.1 by Accused No.3 represented by Accused No.2 as its advocate, wherein the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the order dated 25.3.2021 while dismissing the appeal, has observed at paragraph-18 as under: " 18. in the light of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law. The appellant has been unsuccessful on almost about nine occasions by filing the frivolous proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in imposing the exemplary costs while dismissing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has also observed that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action and this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same ." (underline supplied) 50. Learned senior Counsel for Accused No.3 as well as Accused No.2/R. Subramanian - party-in-person submit that an SLP filed against the said order is still pending for adjudication, but no documents are produced in support of the same. 51. It is an undisputed fact that the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs by exercising his powers under the provisions of Section 8(6) of the Companies Act has revoked/cancelled the licence issued to Accused No.1/India Awake for Transparency. The material on record clearly depicts that the proceedings were initiated in the name of non-existent company i.e., India Awake for Transparency represented by Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its advocate in some matters and Accused No.2 as its authorized signatory as well as Advocate/party-in-person in some other matters as unde r:- 1. The material on record clearly depicts that the proceedings were initiated in the name of non-existent company i.e., India Awake for Transparency represented by Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its advocate in some matters and Accused No.2 as its authorized signatory as well as Advocate/party-in-person in some other matters as unde r:- 1. Company Application No.185/2016 in Company Petition No.182/2014 dismissed on 17.03.2021. 2. Original Side Appeal No. 1/2021 dismissed on 22.4.2021 3. Writ Petition No.3636/2020 dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally on 1.10.2020 4. Writ Petition No.12073/2020 dismissed on 21.1.2021 5. Writ Appeal 229/2021 dismissed on 30.3.2021 6. Writ Petition No.12769/2020 dismissed on 26.2.2021 7. Writ Appeal No.384/2021 dismissed on 21.4.2021 8. Writ Petition No.13838/2020 dismissed on 8.1.2021 9. Writ Petition No.172/2021 dismissed on 12.2.2021 with costs of Rs.10,00,000/- 10. Writ Appeal No. 307/2021 dismissed on 25.3.2021 52. In view of the above, it is clear that the 2nd Accused besides being the one who is representing the 1st accused before the Courts of Law and other forums as its Advocate, is also the authorized representative of the 1st Accused-Company to act on behalf of the 1st accused in the actions that are being brought by it as well as the one that are brought against it. In other words, the 2nd accused has been performing the dual role in relation the matters pertaining to the 1st Accused-Company. In fact in the meeting of the Board of Directors of Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency, held on 7.1.2020, it is resolved that the authorization dated 1.7.2015 issued to Accused No.2 - Mr. R. Subramanian shall stand withdrawn, in full. As such, Accused NO.2 was authorized signatory of the Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency till 7.1.2020. Knowing fully well that Accused No.1 is a non-existent company and authorization dated 1.7.2015 issued to Accused No.2 stood withdrawn on 7.1.2020, Accused No.2 has appeared in all the cases stated supra and failed to succeed either before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench. Accused No.2 acted as an advocate and continued as an authorized signatory of the Accused No.1 (non-existing company) between 23.4.2016 and 7.12.2020. Accused No.2 had filed vakalathnama on 7.2.2020 in the Writ Petition No.3635/2020, thereby he has given up all his professional ethics as contemplated under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Accused No.2 acted as an advocate and continued as an authorized signatory of the Accused No.1 (non-existing company) between 23.4.2016 and 7.12.2020. Accused No.2 had filed vakalathnama on 7.2.2020 in the Writ Petition No.3635/2020, thereby he has given up all his professional ethics as contemplated under the provisions of the Advocates Act, 1961. Being an advocate and party-in-person, Accused No.2 has misused the process of the court and harassed the complainants and others repeatedly and wasted the precious public & judicial time of the Court, thereby the accused No.3 filed number of writ petitions on behalf of Accused No.1 - company which is non-existing and continuously was represented by A2 - party in person, thereby it amounts to daring ride on the Court. It is also to be stated that carrying on proceedings which are frivolous, vexatious or oppressive, also constitute an abuse of process . 53. The material on record clearly depicts that the 1st accused is completely under the control of the 2nd accused, who has personally planned, organized and instituted various legal proceedings and committed the various acts which constitute criminal contempt. The accused Nos.2 and 3 directly and indirectly continue to file further legal proceedings on the same subject and in the same manner though the same is deprecated and held to be illegal by this Court. The conduct of the Accused No.3 in filing several writ petitions, writ appeals and Original Side Appeal in the name of Accused No.1, a non-existing company and Accused No.2 appearing as its advocate, is nothing but indulging in forum shopping on the same cause of action and amounts to criminal contempt as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 307/2021 dated 25.3.2021, which has reached finality . 54. It is also not in dispute that learned Advocate General by his letter dated 10.6.2021 has given consent to the applicants/complainants viz., Hasham Investment and Trading Company Private Limited, Wipro Limited and Mr. Azim Hasham Premji under Section 15(1) (b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 in Consent Application No.04/2021 to initiate criminal contempt against ‘Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the present contempt petition’ and recorded a finding that the clauses of resolution of the Board of Directors would show that the role of Accused No.2 - R. Subramanian, is not limited to the role of counsel, but it is far beyond that. In other words Accused No.2 - R. Subramanian can be said to be part of Accused No.1 - ‘India Awake for Transparency’. Indeed, Accused No.2 - R. Subramanian has acted as authorized signatory in some of the proceedings and one such affidavit is filed in the Company Petition No.182/2014. According to Accused No.2 - party in person, he has already filed W.P. (Civil) No.885/2021 against the consent given by the learned Advocate General and same is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Accused Nos.1 and 3 also filed Writ Petition No.19026/2021 before this Court and the same is pending for adjudication. Admittedly either before this Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, no interim order is passed as on today . 55. It is also not in dispute that this Court in the present contempt petition by the order dated 6.7.2021 relying upon the observations made in Writ Petition No.172/2021 dated 12.2.2021 and Writ Appeal No.307/2021 dated 25.3.2021, has opined that "this is a fit case to exercise suo motu power of contempt of court proceedings ." Further, in view of the consent given by the learned Advocate General dated 10.6.2021, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that " prima facie case of Accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 committing criminal contempt is made out ." 56. It is also relevant to state at this stage that Accused No.2 filed an application I.A. No.2/2021 to recall the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench. After arguing the matter at length, at the instance of Accused No.2/party-in person, I.A. No.2/2021 came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 19.11.2021 with liberty to Accused No.2 to pursue his remedy in accordance with law. According to Accused No.2/party-in-person, against the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the present contempt petition, he has filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but no documents are placed before this Court in support of the same. 57. According to Accused No.2/party-in-person, against the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the present contempt petition, he has filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but no documents are placed before this Court in support of the same. 57. It is also relevant to state at this stage that against the order passed by the Regional Director (Southern Region), Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, Shastri Bhavan, Chennai, dated 17.8.2018 canceling/revoking licence of India Awake for Transparency, the 1st Accused filed Writ Petition No.10235/2019 and connected matters before the High Court of Judicature at Madras duly represented by Mr.R. Subramanian, the 2 nd Accused herein as its advocate and the learned Single Judge of Madras High Court while dismissing the said writ petition by the order dated 4.1.2022, has observed at paragraphs - 24. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 as under: 24. In this regard, a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the shell companies that were forming part of the cartel were dealt with in detail in the anticipatory bail petition filed by one of the Directors of the concern and taking note of the shell companies, this Court had detailed the said companies which were functioning and the holding pattern in the said companies, while dealing with Crl. O.P. No.21449/2015. 25. Thereafter series of litigations were filed by the petitioner in the Karnataka High Court against the 3rd respondent claiming defalcation of accounts and after detailed hearing, learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court dismissed the said petition in W.P. No.172/2021 (GM~Res) holding that the petition at the instance of the petitioner is a sheer abuse of process of law and also imposed cost. 26. The petitioner herein, thereafter filed appeal in O.S.A. No.1/2021 before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court assailing the correctness of the order passed in Company Application No.185/2016 and the Division Bench, while dismissing the said appeal, observed that the petitioner is indulging in speculative litigation not only by filing this appeal, but repeatedly over the years has been filing litigation before one Court or the other for the same cause of action. Further, the Division Bench has also refrained the petitioner herein from proceeding with filing any proceeding with regard to the amalgamation of three companies before any Court or authority or forum in view of the loss of precious court time under the guise of public interest, which is nothing but an instance of gross abuse of process of law. The Special Leave Petition in SLP (Crl.) Diary No.12031/2020 filed against the said order stood withdrawn by the petitioner. 27. It is further borne out by record, which is also not in dispute that action for criminal contempt has been initiated, suo motu, against the petitioner by the Karnataka High Court, which is yet to see the light of the day and stepping into stopping the adjournment spree, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1177 to 1179/2021 (Azim Hasham Premji & Anr. Vs India Awake for Transparency & Ors. - Dated 02.12.2021), has deprecated the act of the petitioner in trying to obfuscate the proceedings before the Karnataka High Court by seeking adjournment one way or the other and had framed a time schedule within which the proceedings are to complete. 28. The above facts are narrated to highlight the fact about the modus of the petitioner in initiating litigative process, which are sheer abuse of process of law. In this regard, all the litigations have been raised against the 3rd respondent herein before the Karnataka High Court, which is an admitted fact. Merely because notice has been issued in one of the matters by the Karnataka High Court would not be a bar for this Court to consider the sustainability of the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent as there are many orders, which stare on the face of the petitioner. 29. In the backdrop of the above facts, a careful perusal of the order passed by the 2nd respondent reveals that the 2nd respondent has taken into consideration all the materials, including information collected by the SFIO, the Enforcement Directorate, Banks, Income Tax Department, Statutory Auditors, CBI, Commissioner of Service Tax, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and having analysed the said documents, has come to an irrefutable conclusion that the that the motive behind the formation of the respondent was not fulfilled even after six years of incorporation and its objects are not achieved till date. Moreover, the regulatory compliances by the respondent company as well as its owner companies were not fulfilled and the companies were not regular in filing their financial statements and statutory annual returns and that the petitioner is only using its privileged position as a Section 8 company by involving itself in litigations with private limited companies with no public interest nor serving any public cause. 58. It is also relevant to state at this stage that the 1st complainant in the present contempt petition initiated proceedings under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in C.C. No.25456/2009 against Subhiksha Trading Services Limited; Mr.R. Subramanian (Accused No.2 herein), the Director, Subhiksha Trading Services and three others. " The XXI Addl. CMM & XXIII ASCJ, Bangalore city by the order dated 31.12.2021, has convicted Accused Nos.1,2 and 5 therein {Subhiksha Trading Services Limited; Mr. R. Subramanian (present Accused No.2) and Mr. K. Balasubramanian, Deputy General Manager, Subhiksha Trading Services} for the offence punishable under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and shall pay fine of Rs.62,63,59,893/- (sixty two crores sixty-three lakhs, fifty-nine thousand eight hundred and ninety-three only)" and out of the fine amount, the complainant therein viz., Hasham Investment and Trading Company Limited, is entitled for a sum of Rs.62,63,49,893/- as compensation under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and balance of Rs.10,000/- shall be paid to the State as fine. 59. The material on record clearly depicts that the proceedings were filed in the name of the non-existing company (Accused No.1) by Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its advocate challenging the legality of amalgamation of three Azim Premji Group of companies with another group company, even though no outside shareholder or creditor was in any way affected. The challenge was on an absolutely frivolous and absurd ground viz., that as the amalgamating companies were shareholders of each other, all their properties belonged to the Central Government because of "bona vacantia" under Article 296 of the Constitution of India. The Central Government by the order dated 10.11.2017 specifically held that the properties of the amalgamating companies did not belong to the Central Government. The same is also referred in Writ Appeal No.307/2021 by the Division Bench of this Court. The Central Government by the order dated 10.11.2017 specifically held that the properties of the amalgamating companies did not belong to the Central Government. The same is also referred in Writ Appeal No.307/2021 by the Division Bench of this Court. The proceedings initiated by Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' against the complainants at the instance of Accused No.2/party-in-person after the complainants initiated proceedings under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in the year 2009 against the Accused No.2 and others. 60. It is relevant to state that Accused No.2 - Subramanian is the alter ego of Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency', in whose name various legal proceedings stated supra were filed. Licence granted to ‘India Awake for Transparency’ to drop the words 'Private Limited' from its name was revoked by the Regional Director by the order dated 17.8.2018 passed under Section 8(6) of the Companies Act. It is important to note that in every single legal proceedings, Accused No.2 - R. Subramanian has appeared as an advocate. Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency', is mere shell company as is clear from its last available balance sheet, as it has no income and negligible expenditure, and does not even possess a bank account. Its total assets are only about Rs. 1 lakh and this has remained unchallenged in the last several years. All these indisputable facts make it clear that Accused No.2 - R. Subramanian is the alter ego of 'India Awake for Transparency', that "India Awake for Transparency" is only a corporate facade used by Accused No.2, and that all the legal proceedings filed in the name of "India Awake for Transparency" are at his behest and instance, as admitted by Accused No.3 in Writ Petition No.3635/2020 (PIL), wherein at paragraph - 50 it is observed as under: " The Petitioner further states that the other defence of the 11th Respondent and his entities is as though the proceedings are mala fide as the Petitioner is only a device being used by Mr. R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd had dealings with the 12th Respondent. The Petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back as the said Mr. R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd had dealings with the 12th Respondent. The Petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back as the said Mr. R.Subramanian is a Volunteer of the Petitioner and is the very person who has filed the Affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's for recall of merger and has appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the Petitioner as Advocate of the Petitioner. The role of the said person is evidently not Suppressed nor in any manner sought to be hidden. The law being well settled that mere claim of mala fide is no defence to a charge founded on evidence the said claims are mere red herring to try and distract the judicial proceedings. The present proceedings are not driven by mala fide but the sheer scale of the fraud got effected with connivance of all who were to protect public interest. The Petitioner states that many scams be it the coal scam or the 2G scam have come to light only through actions of persons adversarial to the persons in power. That such persons would be the watchdogs when regulators fail to act is well recognised. The petitioner states that in any event there is no requirement for it to be a front for any other as what the issues herein can be raised by any one in public interest ." (emphasis supplied) 61. As already stated supra, the writ petition filed in the name of Accused No.1 - India Awake for Transparency in Writ Petition No.3635/2020 came to be dismissed as it was unconditionally withdrawn on 1.10.2020 and no liberty was granted to Accused No.1 represented by Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory. In the absence of the same, subsequent writ petitions filed on the same cause of action, are not permissible as observed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and confirmed by the Division Bench as stated supra. 62. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A.T., reported in (1987)1 SCC 5 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has held at paragraph 9 as under: 9. 62. Our view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A.T., reported in (1987)1 SCC 5 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has held at paragraph 9 as under: 9. The point for consideration is whether a petitioner after withdrawing a writ petition filed by him in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the permission to institute a fresh petition can file a fresh writ petition in the High Court under that article. On this point the decision in Daryao case [ AIR 1961 SC 1457 : (1962) 1 SCR 574 ] is of no assistance. But we are of the view that the principle underlying Rule 1 of Order XXIII of the Code should be extended in the interests of administration of justice to cases of withdrawal of writ petition also, not on the ground of res judicata but on the ground of public policy as explained above. It would also discourage the litigant from indulging in bench-hunting tactics. In any event there is no justifiable reason in such a case to permit a petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution once again. While the withdrawal of a writ petition filed in a High Court without permission to file a fresh writ petition may not bar other remedies like a suit or a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India since such withdrawal does not amount to res judicata, the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be deemed to have been abandoned by the petitioner in respect of the cause of action relied on in the writ petition when he withdraws it without such permission. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. In the instant case the High Court was right in holding that a fresh writ petition was not maintainable before it in respect of the same subject-matter since the earlier writ petition had been withdrawn without permission to file a fresh petition. We, however, make it clear that whatever we have stated in this order may not be considered as being applicable to a writ petition involving the personal liberty of an individual in which the petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of habeas corpus or seeks to enforce the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution since such a case stands on a different footing altogether. We, however leave this question open. 63. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act and Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the case of Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha v. State of U.P., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 560 , has held at paragraphs 15 and 16 as under: "15. In the said counter-affidavit, it has further been disclosed that after being unsuccessful in their attempt to stall the recovery proceedings against the Samiti, a fictitious welfare Sanstha, namely, Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha was started by Appellant 2. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the attempt on the part of the appellants herein must be termed as “abuse of the process of law”. "16. A writ remedy is an equitable one. A person approaching a superior court must come with a pair of clean hands. It not only should not suppress any material fact, but also should not take recourse to the legal proceedings over and over again which amounts to abuse of the process of law. In Advocate General, State of Bihar v. M.P. Khair Industries [ (1980) 3 SCC 311 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 688] this Court was of the opinion that such a repeated filing of writ petitions amounts to criminal contempt." 64. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, in the case of Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, reported in (1995)3 SCC 619 , has held at paragraphs 19 and 20 as under: 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India, in the case of Sanjiv Datta, Dy. Secy., Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, reported in (1995)3 SCC 619 , has held at paragraphs 19 and 20 as under: 19. Of late, we have been coming across several instances which can only be described as unfortunate both for the legal profession and the administration of justice. It becomes, therefore, our duty to bring it to the notice of the members of the profession that it is in their hands to improve the quality of the service they render both to the litigant-public and to the courts, and to brighten their image in the society. Some members of the profession have been adopting perceptibly casual approach to the practice of the profession as is evident from their absence when the matters are called out, the filing of incomplete and inaccurate pleadings — many times even illegible and without personal check and verification, the non-payment of court fees and process fees, the failure to remove office objections, the failure to take steps to serve the parties, et al. They do not realise the seriousness of these acts and omissions. They not only amount to the contempt of the court but do positive disservice to the litigants and create embarrassing situation in the court leading to avoidable unpleasantness and delay in the disposal of matters. This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system. 20. The legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The legal profession is different from other professions in that what the lawyers do, affects not only an individual but the administration of justice which is the foundation of the civilised society. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The society has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour. Both as a leading member of the intelligentsia of the society and as a responsible citizen, the lawyer has to conduct himself as a model for others both in his professional and in his private and public life. The society has a right to expect of him such ideal behaviour. It must not be forgotten that the legal profession has always been held in high esteem and its members have played an enviable role in public life. The regard for the legal and judicial systems in this country is in no small measure due to the tireless role played by the stalwarts in the profession to strengthen them. They took their profession seriously and practised it with dignity, deference and devotion. If the profession is to survive, the judicial system has to be vitalised. No service will be too small in making the system efficient, effective and credible. The casualness and indifference with which some members practise the profession are certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige either of the profession or of the institution they are serving. If people lose confidence in the profession on account of the deviant ways of some of its members, it is not only the profession which will suffer but also the administration of justice as a whole. The present trend unless checked is likely to lead to a stage when the system will be found wrecked from within before it is wrecked from outside. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take the corrective steps in time and also spare the courts the unpleasant duty. We say no more. 65. Like any other organ of the State, the Judiciary is also manned by human beings - but the function of the judiciary is distinctly different from other organs of the State - in the sense its function is divine. Today, the judiciary is the repository of public faith. It is the trustee of the people. It is the last hope of the people. After every knock at all the doors fail, people approach the judiciary as the last resort. It is the only temple worshipped by every citizen of this nation, regardless of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. It is the trustee of the people. It is the last hope of the people. After every knock at all the doors fail, people approach the judiciary as the last resort. It is the only temple worshipped by every citizen of this nation, regardless of religion, caste, sex or place of birth. It is high time the judiciary must take utmost care to see that the temple of justice does not crack from inside, which will lead to a catastrophe in the justice-delivery system resulting in the failure of public confidence in the system. We must remember that woodpeckers inside pose a larger threat than the storm outside . 66. The accused No.2 who is the Officer of the Court must ensure that the majesty of the Court is maintained and not to take advantage to file repeated petitions at the instance of Accused No.3 in the name of Accused No.1 company - 'India Awake for Transparency', which is non-existing. In such an event, the people lose confidence in the profession on account of deviant ways by Accused No.2 at the instance of Accused No.3. It is not only the profession which will suffer but also administration of justice as a whole. It is for the members of the profession to introspect and take corrective steps in time and also spare the Courts the unpleasant duty. The conduct of Accused NO.3 filing the petitions again and again against the complainants in the name of Accused No.1 - company, which is non-existent, is nothing but daring ride on the Court, which is impermissible. 67. It is true that the judges should not be hyper sensitive in discharging judicial functions, but that does not mean and imply that they ought to maintain angelic silence also. Immaterial it is as to the person but it is the seat of justice which needs protection; it is the image of judicial system which needs protection. Nobody can be permitted to tarnish the image of the temple of justice. The majesty of the Court shall have to be maintained and there ought not to be any compromise or leniency in that regard. It is well settled that legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. The majesty of the Court shall have to be maintained and there ought not to be any compromise or leniency in that regard. It is well settled that legal profession is a solemn and serious occupation. It is a noble calling and all those who belong to it are its honourable members. Although the entry to the profession can be had by acquiring merely the qualification of technical competence, the honour as a professional has to be maintained by its members by their exemplary conduct both in and outside the court. The casualness with which some members practice the profession is certainly not calculated to achieve that purpose or to enhance the prestige either of the profession or of the institution they are serving . 68. The experience of this Court depicts that in recent years there has emerged a trend of filing speculative litigations before various Courts of law, not just in the Court of first instance, but also in the High Court as well as before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is the duty of the Courts to ensure that such litigations shall be weeded out at the first instance rather than allowing to be festered and thereby coming in the way of genuine litigants seeking justice treating the Court as "Temple of Justice" and to protect precious public & judicial time of the court . " This augurs ill for the health of our judicial system" . 69. It is high time for the Court to protect not only the majesty of the court, but also ensure judicial discipline of the Court, since it is the repository of public faith and trustee of the people. The circumstances warrant that the Court has to act as 'Societal Parent' to protect Dharma as preached by Bhagvan Sri Krishna, at verse 7-8 of Chapter 4 of the Bhagavadgeetha, which is as under: ^^;nk ;nk fg /keZL;] Xykuh Hkofr Hkjr vH;qRFkkue~ v/keZL;] rnkReue~ JhtkE;ge~ ifj=k.kk; lkS/kquke] fou'kk; p nq"d`rke~ /kEkZlaLFkk iUukFkkZ;] laHkokfe ;qxs ;qxs^^ which means: Whenever there is decay of righteousness, O Bharata, And there is exaltation of unrighteousness, then I myself come forth; For the protection of the good, for the destruction of evil-doers, For the sake of firmly establishing righteousness, I am born from age to age. 70. 70. It is the contention of learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 that after withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 3635/2020, filing of five separate writ petitions in the name of Accused No.1 by Accused No.3, cannot be treated as abuse of the process of the Court and thereby the charges framed against Accused No.3 is not proper. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of the discussion/reasons stated supra that the accused No.3 conducted the proceedings stated above even after cancellation of licence of the Accused No.1 - company by the Regional Director, in exercise of the powers under the provisions of Section 8(6) of the Companies Act by the order dated 17.8.2018 and the writ petition No.10235/2019 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras against the order dated 17.8.2018 came to be dismissed by the order dated 4.1.2022. 71. The further contention of the learned senior Counsel for Accused No.3 is that the averments made in the contempt petition do not amount to criminal contempt, since Accused No.3 is neither Manager nor Secretary or other Officer as contemplated under subsection 2 of Section 59 of the Companies Act. The said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that Accused NO.3 has acted on behalf of Accused No.1 company, in terms of the resolution of the Board of Directors of Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' dated 1.6.2015, wherein at serial No.2 -Mr. Panjala Sadananda was authorized to act jointly or severally along with two others, to institute, commence, prosecute, file, present, carry on or defend or resist and conduct any complaint including criminal contempt, Arbitral proceeding, suit, Legal or other proceedings of any kind for recovery or realization of monies or assets to which the Company is entitled to, company petitions of all kinds, both in respect of matters of company itself and in respect of those of counter party companies etc., 72. Learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 submits that if for any reason, this Court comes to the concussion that Accused No.3 filing the petitions after petitions in the name of Accused No.1 - company, which was non-existing amounts to criminal contempt, his unconditional apology may be accepted and pardon the Accused No.3. Learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 submits that if for any reason, this Court comes to the concussion that Accused No.3 filing the petitions after petitions in the name of Accused No.1 - company, which was non-existing amounts to criminal contempt, his unconditional apology may be accepted and pardon the Accused No.3. The same cannot be accepted as this Court by the order dated 23.12.2021 while holding that this is a fit case to frame the charge, has not accepted the apology and the said order passed by this court has reached finality. Further, Accused No.3 has not filed any affidavit of unconditional apology, in writing before this Court. If really Accused No.3 wants to tender unconditional apology, he should have given it in writing by way of personal affidavit and used the proper words and it should have been sincere and should have expressed regret. In the absence of the same and in the absence of any affidavit of unconditional apology in writing, the oral submission of the learned senior counsel for Accused No.3, cannot be accepted. 73. In the judgment relied upon by learned senior counsel for Accused NO.3 in the case of Rajesh Kumar Singh -vs- High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench, Gwalior reported in (2007)14 SCC 126 [para 20 and 21) the Hon'ble Supreme Court repeatedly cautioned that the power to punish for contempt is not intended to be invoked or exercised routinely or mechanically, but with circumspection and restraint. Courts should not readily infer an intention to scandalize courts or lowering the authority of he court unless such intention is clearly established. Nor should they exercise power to punish for contempt where mere question of propriety is involved and the Judges, like everyone else, will have to earn respect and they cannot demand respect by- (i) punishing persons for unintended acts or technical violations; (ii) frequent summoning of Government officers to court; and (iii) making avoidable adverse comments and observations against persons who are not parties. The exercise of such powers results in eroding the confidence of the public, rather than creating trust and faith in the judiciary. The exercise of such powers results in eroding the confidence of the public, rather than creating trust and faith in the judiciary. We have no quarrel with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court about the over sensitivity and punishing persons for unintended acts or technical violations etc, but in the present case, admittedly the licence granted to Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency' came to be cancelled/revoked by the Regional Director, in exercise of the powers under Section 8(6) of the Companies Act as per the order dated 17.8.2018. Though a writ petition came to be filed in Writ Petition No.10235/2019 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras challenging the order dated 17.8.2018, no interim order was granted during the pendency of the said writ petition and ultimately the said writ petition came to be dismissed on 4.1.2022. It is not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - company, Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its advocate filed several writ petitions, writ appeals against the complainants and others and failed to succeed in those matters. Though learned counsel for Accused No.3 and Party-in-Person/Accused No.2 submit that SLPs filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, but no material produced before this Court to show that Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed any interim order. In the present case, the acts committed by Accused Nos.2 and 3, are nothing but lowering the dignity and majesty of the Court and the Courts should not be silent spectators allowing the Accused No.3 to file litigation after litigation on the same cause of action, in the name of Accused No.1 (non-existing company) represented by Accused No.2/advocate and the same is nothing but forum shopping and cannot be encouraged. Therefore, the said judgment relied upon by the learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 74. In the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench relied upon by the learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 in the case of the Bangalore Development Authority by its Commissioner -vs- Gururaj and another reported in ILR 2007 Kar. 74. In the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench relied upon by the learned senior counsel for Accused No.3 in the case of the Bangalore Development Authority by its Commissioner -vs- Gururaj and another reported in ILR 2007 Kar. 5184, this Court held that filing of the appeal against the order of rejection of plaint cannot be termed as interference in the administration of justice or obstruction of the same - order VII Rule 13 clearly permits the accused for filing fresh suit on the same cause of action, when the plaint is rejected on any of the grounds enumerated under Rule 11 of Order VII CPC. Since the accused has availed the statutory remedy by filing a second suit, the same cannot be termed as obstruction or interference in the administration of justice. It is not in dispute that in the name of Accused No.1 - company, Accused No.3 as its authorized signatory and Accused No.2 as its advocate filed several writ petitions, writ appeals against the complainants. The same is admitted by Accused No.3 in Writ Petition No.3635/2020 (PIL), wherein at paragraph-50 it is specifically stated as under: " The Petitioner further states that the other defence of the 11th Respondent and his entities is as though the proceedings are mala fide as the Petitioner is only a device being used by Mr. R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd had dealings with the 12th Respondent. The Petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back as the said Mr. R.Subramanian is a Volunteer of the Petitioner and is the very person who has filed the Affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's for recall of merger and has appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the Petitioner as Advocate of the Petitioner . 75. It is also not in dispute that Writ Petition No.172 of 2021 filed by the 1st accused was disposed of by the order dated 12.2.2021, wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court observed that there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action and as held in the case of Udyami - (2008)1 SCC 560 , this amounts to criminal contempt. Admittedly, the said order passed by the learned Single Judge is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.307 of 2021 by the judgment dated 25.3.2021 and the same has reached finality. Therefore, it is clear that Accused Nos.2 and 3 have filed several writ petitions and writ appeals against the complainants to settle the score between them and the complainants, as there was no direct lis between the parties. Therefore, the dictum of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of BDA stated supra has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 76. Though Accused No.2 contended that no documents are produced to prove the charge No.1 that he has played a dual role i.e., both as an authorized signatory as well as an advocate, the material on record stated supra clearly indicates that he has acted not only as an authorized signatory but also as an advocate from 23.4.2015 till 7.1.2020 and his authorization dated 1.7.2015 was withdrawn only on 7.1.2020 in the meeting of Board of Directors of Accused No.1 - 'India Awake for Transparency', a non-existing company. In fact the said resolution dated 7.1.2020 was signed by only one Director. Therefore, the contention of the Accused No.2/party-in-person cannot be accepted. 77. Though the contentions urged by accused No.2/Partyin-Person that his role is limited to that of a pure advocate with no dual role and therefore, the scope of dragging him into these proceedings is very limited as it can be only in respect of matters where the advocate can have some direct responsibility as in the case of suppression or scandalous pleadings; In the present case, as there was no repeated filing of writ petitions on the same cause of action, the judgment dated 12th February, 2021 delivered in Writ Petition No.172/2021 is erroneous since it has been held that the writ petitions are being filed on the same cause of action; and When reliefs are different and the main respondent itself is different in each of the writ petitions, the question of filing writ petition repeatedly does not arise, the same cannot be accepted, when the learned Single Judge of this Court at paragraph-27 has specifically held as under: "27. Thus, there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action. Thus, there remains no doubt that petitioner is indulging in forum shopping on the very same cause of action. As held in Udyami Evam Khadi Gramodyog Welfare Sanstha and Another -vsState of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008)1 SCC 560 , this amounts to criminal contempt as the core issue in all these writ petitions is one and the same." The said writ petition was dismissed with cost of Rs.10 lakhs (Rupees Ten Lakhs). It is also not in dispute that against the said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, Writ Appeal No.307/2021 was preferred by India Awake for Transparency/accused No.1 represented by the said Sri P. Sadananda/accused No.3, authorized signatory represented by an advocate, Sri R. Subramanian/accused No.2, and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by the judgment, dated 25th March, 2021 at paragraph 18 has opined that, in the light of the judgments referred therein, writ petition is nothing but sheer abuse of process of law. The appellant therein (respondent No.1 herein) had been unsuccessful on almost about nine occasions by filing the frivolous proceedings. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in imposing the exemplary costs while dismissing the writ petition and against said order, the writ appeal preferred was also not maintainable in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service -vs- State Transport Appellate Tribunal, M.P. Gwalior and Others reported in (1987)1 SCC 5 and accordingly, it was dismissed. Therefore, the contention of accused No.2 that, the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the writ petition is being filed on the same cause of action, cannot be accepted. However, in the present contempt proceedings, admittedly, when the orders passed by the learned Single Judge is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court and has reached finality, the contention of accused No.2 that, the subject matter of writ appeals are before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, cannot be accepted in the absence of any material produced before this Court. 78. With regard to other contention urged by the Party-in-Person/accused No.2 with regard to the merits of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench stated supra, this Court cannot adjudicate the case on merits except in verifying whether the proceedings set out are being action of criminal contempt or not. 78. With regard to other contention urged by the Party-in-Person/accused No.2 with regard to the merits of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and Division Bench stated supra, this Court cannot adjudicate the case on merits except in verifying whether the proceedings set out are being action of criminal contempt or not. As already stated supra, all the proceedings initiated in the name of non-existing company-accused No.1 represented by accused No.3 as authorised signatory, through an advocate, Sri R. Subramanian/accused No.2, clearly depicts that the accused persons have abused the process of law. It is the duty of accused No.2 being an advocate, who is called the Officer of the Court, to advise accused No.3 properly and ought not to have supported accused No.3 in filing successive writ petitions against the complainants and others, even though he has been unsuccessful in all the matters, when according to him, all the matters have reached finality before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in writ appeals and original side appeals which are also subject matters of appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but no material is produced before this Court to prove that there is no interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the contention of accused No.2 that no charge is made out against him and the entire criminal contempt proceedings are only malafide proceedings, cannot be accepted. 79. Therefore, the contention of accused No.2 that no charge is made out against him and the entire criminal contempt proceedings are only malafide proceedings, cannot be accepted. 79. As already stated supra, when the charges framed against accused Nos.2 and 3 by this Court on 23.12.2021 has reached finality, the material on record clearly depicts that accused No.2, being the authorized signatory and an advocate of a nonexistent company-accused No.1-India Awake for Transperancy, has played dual role between 23.4.2016 and 7.12.2020 by filing number of frivolous writ petitions, writ appeals, criminal petitions, original side appeals against complainants and others suppressing the facts amounting to abuse of process of law and continued the proceedings; and inspite of dismissal of all the writ petitions filed on the same cause of action and despite warning and prohibition by the orders of this Court, still filed several cases and continued the proceedings and his conduct (accused No.2) is nothing but daring ride on the Court and mockery of judicial process, not only affecting the interest of the public at large, but also interfering with the administration of justice by misusing the forum of various Courts, wasting precious public judicial time, thereby amounting to criminal contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act. 80. The material on record clearly depicts that the charge framed against accused No.3 also proves the fact that he filed repeated number of frivolous writ petitions, writ appeals, criminal petitions, original side appeals against the complainants and others in the name of accused No.1/India Awake for Transparency which is a non-existing Company amounting to abuse of process of law in wasting precious public judicial time. Despite warning and prohibition by the orders of the Court, he filed several cases and continued the proceedings and his conduct is nothing, but daring ride on the Court and mockery of judicial process not only affecting the interest of public at large, but also interfering with the administration of justice and by misusing the forum of various Courts, thereby amounting to criminal contempt within the meaning of the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 punishable under Section 12 of the said Act. 81. 81. The further contention of the party-in-person/accused No.2 that, no proceedings have been adjudicated on merits and as such, the question of any further hearing being frivolous does not arise, cannot be accepted. Admittedly, the orders passed by the learned Single Judge has been confirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and consequently, the cognizance of criminal contempt has been taken against accused Nos.2 and 3 by the order dated 6.7.2021 holding that the action of accused Nos.2 and 3 amounts to criminal contempt and the same has reached finality. 82. The present contempt proceedings is arising out of the order dated 6.7.2021 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court for taking cognizance of the offence of the criminal contempt committed by the accused persons and to punish them for commission of acts of criminal contempt. It is also relevant to mention, at this stage, that inspite of serious contest by accused Nos.2 and 3, during the course of arguments, the submission made by the accused that, if the Court comes to the conclusion that, accused Nos.2 and 3 are found guilty of charges levelled against them, they would tender unconditional apology and may be pardoned by dropping the contempt proceedings, cannot be accepted in the present contempt proceedings. In the entire synopsis filed by either accused No.2 or learned Counsel for accused No.3, they have submitted that they would tender unconditional apology in the form of affidavit. The way in which the arguments are submitted on behalf of accused Nos.2 and 3 is that, if this Court comes to the conclusion that accused Nos.2 and 3 are found guilty of the charges leveled against them, they would tender unconditional apology, is a fence sitting attitude and clearly depicts that they are not expressing any remorse. As such, the oral unconditional apology in the absence of any affidavit cannot be accepted. 83. It is also the specific contention of the complainants that the verification of the pleadings by Accused No.3 in all 42 proceedings filed in the name of ‘India Awake for Transparency’ against the complainants and others constitute criminal contempt. Accused No.3 has stated on oath before the criminal court that he does not know English or Kannada and that he only knows Telugu. Accused No.3 has stated on oath before the criminal court that he does not know English or Kannada and that he only knows Telugu. Consequently, it is not possible for him to be acquainted with the pleadings and the facts and the allegations and contentions raised in each legal proceeding. In these circumstances, the blind and mindless participation of Accused No.3 in the number of legal proceedings, only in order to enable Accused No.2 to file number of legal proceedings in order to wreak vengeance on the complainants and others and this itself constitutes criminal contempt as it has interfered with and obstructed the administration of justice simultaneously. The same is admitted by Accused No.3 in writ petition filed by him in W.P. No.3635/2020 stating that - "The petitioner is only a device being used by Mr. R.Subramanian who as Managing Director of Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd had dealings with the 12th Respondent. The Petitioner states that there is nothing done behind the back as the said Mr. R.Subramanian is a Volunteer of the Petitioner and is the very person who has filed the Affidavits at this Hon'ble Court in support of the CA's for recall of merger and has appeared in the proceedings in various other judicial forums relating to the matters in this regard being prosecuted by the Petitioner as Advocate of the Petitioner" 84. It is undisputed fact that the accused persons filed repeated Writ Petitions, Writ Appeals etc., in the name of non-existing company - 'India Awake for Transparency' without using the words 'Private Limited', is nothing but a brazen suppression of identity and impersonation done only with a view to mislead this Court (judiciary). Further, 'India Awake for Transparency' had only four share holders i.e., (i) Analog Financial Services Private Limited, (ii) Analog Stock Broking Services Private Limited, (iii)Intel Registry Services Private Limited, and (iv) Lucky View Home Finance Private Limited. The Madras High Court, by its judgment dated 18.09.2015 passed in Crl.O.P.No.21449/2015, has specifically found that, these four shareholder companies were established and controlled by accused No.2-R.Subramanian. The Directors of 'India Awake for Transparency'-Mr. Rajender Kumar and Mrs. Adiseshan Srimathi are disqualified to act as Directors and their appointment as Additional Directors was not regularized in the Annual General Body Meeting of 'India Awake for Transparency'. It is an undisputed fact that in every single legal proceeding, R. Subramanian has appeared as an Advocate. The Directors of 'India Awake for Transparency'-Mr. Rajender Kumar and Mrs. Adiseshan Srimathi are disqualified to act as Directors and their appointment as Additional Directors was not regularized in the Annual General Body Meeting of 'India Awake for Transparency'. It is an undisputed fact that in every single legal proceeding, R. Subramanian has appeared as an Advocate. 'India Awake for Transparency' is a mere shell company as is clear from its last available balance sheet, as it has no income and negligible expenditure, and does not even possess a bank account. All these indisputable facts on record make it abundantly clear that accused No.2-R.Subramanian is the Alter Ego of 'India Awake for Transparency', that 'India Awake for Transparency' is only a corporate facade used by accused No.2 and that all the legal proceedings filed in the name of 'India Awake for Transparency' are at his behest and instance and are financed and controlled by him, as he is the 'directing mind' of 'India Awake for Transparency', and thus continuous and long drawn litigations are at the instance of Accused Nos.2 and 3, thereby they invited the criminal contempt on their own acts and deeds. 85. The definition of ‘criminal contempt’ under the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act is very wide and squarely covers all the aforesaid acts committed by Accused Nos.2 and 3. In view of the above, Accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed criminal contempt as contemplated under the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. In view of the above, Accused Nos.2 and 3 have committed criminal contempt as contemplated under the provisions of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and they are liable to be punished under the provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Keeping in view the fact that Accused No.2, who is a practicing Advocate has misused not only the trust of the litigant entrusted with him, but also has abused the process of the court and such action not only tends to lower the dignity of the court, but also lower the prestige of the court in the eyes of the public litigant, it is desirable to impose maximum sentence awardable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, but having regard to the totality of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and in order to provide an opportunity to Accused Nos.2 and 3 to reform themselves, we are of the considered opinion that accused Nos.2 and 3 are liable to be convicted for the contempt of Court punishable under Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for TWO MONTHS with fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one month. VIII - CONCLUSION 86. On appreciation of the entire material placed on record and for the reasons stated above and in the light of the principles enunciated in the dictums of the Hon’ble Supreme Court stated supra, we answer the points raised in the present contempt petition as under: (i) The 1st point raised is answered in the affirmative holding that the charge levelled against Accused Nos.2 and 3 is proved beyond reasonable doubt, thereby the said accused persons have committed criminal contempt of court within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, in the facts and circumstances of the case. (ii) The 2nd point raised is answered in the negative holding that the Accused Nos.2 and 3 have not made out a case to drop the criminal contempt proceedings and discharge them, in the facts and circumstances of the case. IX - RESULT 87. In view of the above, we pass the following order: (i) The criminal contempt petition is allowed. (ii) Accused No.2 - Mr. IX - RESULT 87. In view of the above, we pass the following order: (i) The criminal contempt petition is allowed. (ii) Accused No.2 - Mr. R. Subramanian and Accused No.3 - Mr. P. Sadanand, are hereby convicted for the contempt of Court, punishable under the provisions of Section 12(1) of the Contempt of Courts Act and sentence them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for TWO MONTHS with fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of one month. (iii) The Accused Nos.2 and 3 are hereby restrained from initiating any legal proceedings against the Complainants and their group of companies before any Court, Tribunal, Authority or forum. (iv) The Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to prepare a warrant of commitment and detention in respect of Accused No.2 and Accused No.3 in Form No.3 as contemplated under Rule 16(1) of the High Court of Karnataka (Contempt of Court Proceedings) Rules, 1981 and take further action against the Accused Nos.2 and 3 to undergo punishment imposed.