Highlighting the need for a declaration regarding previous bail applications filed by the accused in the same crime when a new bail application is filed, the Kerala High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 20,000 on an unscrupulous litigant in a case of bench hunting.

The High Court further held that those who invoke the extraordinary authority of the Court should disclose every material fact as a casual attitude in approaching the Court, and experimentation in litigation cannot be tolerated.

The Single Bench of Justice S.Manu observed, “It is to be noticed that this Court is insisting for declaration regarding previous bail applications filed by accused in the same crime when a new bail application is filed and also for an undertaking that no other bail applications will be filed before this Court or any other Court during the pendency of the application filed before this Court. It is also to be noted that Circular Nos.2 of 2009 and 9 of 2009 were issued by this Court on the administrative side for inclusion of statements regarding other bail applications, in applications filed before the Sessions Court and also in all other Criminal Courts.”

Advocate P. Anoop (Mulavana) represented the Petitioner while Public Prosecutor Harish. K.P. represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

A Criminal Miscellaneous case was filed by the accused seeking quashing of the final report. When it came up for hearing, the Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioner filed another case while this case was pending for the same relief. In the order dated March 19, 2025, it was noticed that the second case happened to be allowed without noticing the pendency of an earlier case filed for the same relief.

Observing that the conduct of the petitioner in this regard couldn’t be approved and the practice of filing cases without disclosing pendency of cases previously filed for the same relief couldn’t be lightly ignored, the Registry was directed to issue notice to the petitioner to show-cause as to why appropriate proceedings shall not be initiated and exemplary costs be imposed. The Petitioner stated in his reply that the Petitioner and the second respondent agreed to close all cases between them. It was further mentioned that the petitioner could not do any follow-up as he went abroad.

Reasoning

The Bench noted that there was no whisper in the memorandum of the second case about the pendency of the earlier criminal case. As per the Bench, the petitioner, who filed the earlier case which was listed and considered on several occasions, by filing another miscellaneous case in suppression of the pendency of other case had abused the process of the Court. “Considerable amount of valuable and limited judicial time was utilized by this Court for handling the above case. Crl.M.Cs. filed in different years are being taken up for hearing by different Benches according to the roster. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner can be considered as an instance of bench hunting also. Such unfair practices cannot be countenanced”, the Bench said.

The Bench explained that the High Court is bestowed with inherent powers in its criminal jurisdiction that are meant to be used for the sake of justice and to forbid abuse of the process of court. This authority conferred on the High Court is meant to be used sparingly and only in appropriate circumstances. The Bench further noted, “Inherent powers cannot be used to extend relief to someone who approached the court in an unclean manner and withheld important information. The High Court's authority to stop abuse of the legal system cannot be allowed to be misused by unscrupulous litigants.”

“Inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 528 of BNSS are akin to the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Therefore, the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the decisions referred above regarding equitable and prerogative jurisdiction would apply to the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Section 528 of BNSS also. Reliefs are not to be placed on soiled hands while exercising prerogative jurisdiction. An applicant invoking the inherent powers of the High Court, suppressing the previous proceedings in the same matter/pendency of proceedings for the same relief should be appropriately dealt with. Court has a duty to zealously guard the judicial process from being misused by unscrupulous litigants”, it added.

It was further noticed that the Petitioner had not even mentioned the name of the lawyer who, according to him, made arrangements to file the latter case.“Practice adopted by the petitioner unquestionably amounts to abuse of the process of the court.” Thus, the Bench imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 20,000 while disposing of the Petition.

Cause Title: Shamil Muhammed v. The State Of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:33316)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocate P. Anoop (Mulavana)

Respondent: Public Prosecutor Harish. K.P.

Click here to read/download Order


Kerala High CourtJustice S Manu

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.