Writ Petition Dismissed as Abuse of Process and Frivolous for Seeking to Vacate Division Bench Orders.

The petitioner, facing trial for impersonating an MCD employee, filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs, including permission to examine four defence witnesses and a declaration that prior judicial orders passed by a Division Bench and other benches were void.

The petitioner further alleged that statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. (or the corresponding BNSS provision) were forged.

The trial was at the stage of final arguments.

Previously, a Division Bench had characterized the petitioner’s actions as a "gross abuse of process," and the trial court had recently dismissed a similar application with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-, which remained unpaid.

1. Whether the petitioner could seek to declare void the orders passed by a Division Bench and other coordinate benches through a writ petition before a Single Judge.

2. Whether the petition constituted a bona fide legal challenge or a frivolous attempt to protract the criminal trial.

The court examined the prayers in light of Article 141 of the Constitution regarding binding precedents and the transition from the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

It applied the principle of judicial discipline, which prevents a Single Judge from overturning orders of a Division Bench.

Furthermore, the court invoked its inherent power to curb the "abuse of process" of the court and the principles governing the conduct of trials, specifically regarding the examination of material witnesses as discussed in *Godrej Pacific Tech. Ltd. v. Computer Joint India Ltd*.

The court found the petitioner’s prayers to be "peculiar" and legally unsustainable.

Specifically, the counsel failed to explain how a Single Bench could declare orders of a Division Bench void or how a judicial record under Section 313 Cr.P.C. could be deemed "forged" without evidence.

The court noted that the petitioner could not produce any application previously filed before the trial court for the witnesses he sought to summon.

Relying on the State's submission, the court observed that the petitioner was consistently attempting to delay the final arguments of a trial.

The court determined that the petition was not only devoid of merit but was a "completely frivolous" exercise intended to obstruct the administration of justice.

It held that the petition was filed with "oblique purposes" of protracting the trial.

The court imposed an additional cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the petitioner, to be deposited with the DLSA, Central District, Rouse Avenue Courts within one week.

The Secretary of the DLSA was directed to ensure the recovery of both the current costs and the previous Rs. 50,000/- cost imposed by the trial court.