Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu has invoked the Rajasthan Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 2015 to declare a former officer of the erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, now State Bank of India, a vexatious litigant. Relying on a finding that the ex-employee habitually initiated meritless civil and criminal proceedings and lodged multiple police complaints in different districts against the bank and around 47 of its officers after his compulsory retirement in 2015, the Court directed that no civil or criminal cases instituted by him shall continue in the High Court or subordinate courts, and that any future proceedings may be filed only with prior leave of the Court.

The petitioners filed an application under Section 2(1)(c) of the Rajasthan Vexatious Litigation (Prevention) Act, 2015 seeking a declaration that the respondent is a vexatious litigant. The application recorded that the respondent had initiated multiple proceedings against bank officers, including several FIRs across police stations in Udaipur, Jodhpur, Kotputli, Jaipur, Alwar and Dausa. The allegations in these complaints related to alleged harassment and victimisation on account of his Scheduled Tribe status and disciplinary proceedings initiated against him.

Also Read: Arbitral Tribunal May Terminate Proceedings For Non-Payment Of Fees Under Section 38(2); Remedy Is To Seek Recall Before Tribunal & Then Invoke Section 14(2): Supreme Court

The reply submitted by the respondent objected to the application and asserted that he acted as an honest citizen in lodging complaints. The petitioners placed before the Court a chart listing criminal complaints, protest petitions, and subsequent revisions that had been pursued. The material noted that the respondent had been appointed in 1989, promoted in 2003, and compulsorily retired in 2015. His challenge to compulsory retirement remained pending. The Court considered statutory provisions including Sections 2 and 5 of the Act of 2015 regarding the threshold for declaring a litigant vexatious and the consequences of instituting proceedings without leave.

The Court recorded that it must be satisfied “that the proceedings which have been initiated by the applicant are not an abuse of the process of Court and prima facie ground is made out on the basis of the proceedings initiated by such person to declare him as vexatious litigant.”

It noted the respondent’s contention that “several officers of the bank are involved in criminal activities and he, therefore, as an honest citizen, filed complaints against them and registered FIRs also.” The material before the Court showed that he had “dragged the bank and 47 officers into frivolous and vexatious litigations” and that “as soon as any departmental proceeding sought to be initiated… he would in a counter plea initiate proceedings against the concerned officer.”

The Court referred to Subrata Roy Sahara, quoting: “The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims… there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim.”

The Bench also cited Mahmood Ali, noting: “the court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely.” It further recorded that the complainant may draft an FIR such that “they disclose the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.” The Court quoted that it may need, “with due care and circumspection try to read in between the lines,” and that it is “empowered to take into account the overall circumstances leading to the initiation/registration of the case.”

The judgment listed illustrative categories of vexatious litigation, stating these are “only illustrative and not exhaustive and would have to be considered in reference to the context of the case before the Court.”

Finally, the Court observed that since the matter related to earlier employment and the respondent “is still continuing to register cases even after filing of the FIR,” it was appropriate to grant leave under Section 3 and declare him a vexatious litigant.

Also Read: Consenting Majors In Live-In Relationship Entitled To Protection Even If Male Is Below 21 Years : Rajasthan High Court Directs Police Nodal Officer To Decide Couple’s Protection Plea

The Court granted leave “in terms of Section 3 of the Act of 2015” and held the respondent to be “a vexatious litigant in terms of Section 2 of the Act of 2015” while directing that “no proceedings (civil or criminal) shall be continued by such person in the High Court or any other Court subordinate thereto.”

“No proceedings (civil or criminal), if already instituted by the respondent in the High Court or any other Court subordinate thereto, shall be continued by him.” If the respondent seeks to initiate any proceeding, “he would first have to seek leave of the Court and move an appropriate application. The respondent shall not be allowed to institute any proceedings without further leave of the Court.”

“Publication of this order shall be made in the official gazette as per the rules framed by the High Court. Copy of the order shall also be sent to the concerned Courts where the proceedings, if any, may have been initiated by the respondent. The application (No.2/2024) stands allowed” and that the application under Section 340 CrPC “stands closed in view of the order passed by this Court. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Senior Advocate; Mr. Madhav Dadhich; Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal; Mr. Vikram Singh; Ms. Annika Anna; Ms. Aayushi Jain

Case Title: State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Babu Lal Meena

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JP:43615-DB

Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7169/2016

Bench: Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Justice Baljinder Singh Sandhu