Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1029 (ALL)

NARESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U P

2009-04-01

R.D.KHARE

body2009
R. D. KHARE, J. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 2 and learned A. G. A. for the State. 2. The present section 482, Cr. P. C. application has been filed for quashing the charge-sheet No. 596 of 2008 dated 30. 12. 2008 submitted in case crime No. 789 of 2008 under sections 363 and 366 IPC pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi. 3. Learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the deponent Ms Neha, being major, had married with the appli cant out of her own freewill, as such, no offence under the charged section is made out against the applicant and the criminal prosecution at the behest of opposite party no. 2 is nothing but gross misuse of process of Court. 3. Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned Coun sel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 has stated that at the time when Neha was abducted by the applicant, she was minor aged about 17-1/2 years, therefore, offence under the charged section is made out against the applicant. He brought to the notice of the Court that applicant is already a married person and the proceeding with his first wife, namely, Smt. Urmila, is pending consideration before the Media tion Centre of this Court vide the order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 720 of 2009 and the date is fixed for today, i. e. , 1st April, 2009 and thereafter 13th April, 2009 is fixed before this Court. 5. A bare perusal of the averments made in this application discloses that no such facts have been detailed in the present application. Thus, it is apparent that the applicant has concealed the material facts before this Court in filing the present appli cation. 6. The judicial process should not become an instrument of oppression or abuse of a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice. Easy access to jus tice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petition. Vide Nooruddin v. Dr. K. L. Anand (1995) 1 SCC 242 Dr. Budhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran and oth ers, AIR 1996 SC 2687 and Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1997 SC 1236 . 7. In Tilokchand Motichand v. H. B. Munshi AIR 1970 SC 898 . State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. K. L. Anand (1995) 1 SCC 242 Dr. Budhi Kota Subbarao v. K. Parasaran and oth ers, AIR 1996 SC 2687 and Ramniklal N. Bhutta and another v. State of Maharashtra and others AIR 1997 SC 1236 . 7. In Tilokchand Motichand v. H. B. Munshi AIR 1970 SC 898 . State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. AIR 1977 SC 781 and Sabia Khan and others v. State of U. P. and others (1999)1 SCC 271 the Honble Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived peti tion amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. 8. In Abdul Rahman v. Prasony Bai and another 2003 AIR SCW 14 and S. J. S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. v. State of Bihar and others AIR 2004 SC 2421 . the Honble Supreme Court held that whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse relief to the party. This rule has been evolved out of need of the Court to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by deceiving it. How ever, the suppressed fact must be material one in the sense that had it not been sup pressed, it would have led to having a very different outcome on the merit of the case. 9. In Afzal and another v. State of Haryana and others, 1996 (33) ACC 224 (SC ). and Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh, (1998) 6 SCC 686 the Apex Court held that a false and a misleading statement deliber ately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order, amounts to prejudice for interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, and it will amount to criminal contempt. and Mohan Singh v. Late Amar Singh, (1998) 6 SCC 686 the Apex Court held that a false and a misleading statement deliber ately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order, amounts to prejudice for interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, and it will amount to criminal contempt. The Court further held that every party is un der a legal obligation to make truthful statement before the Court, for the reason that causing obstruction in the due course of justice "undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity". 10. In view of the above, this applica tion is dismissed with cost of Rs. 10, 000/ -. 11. However, it is provided that if the applicant appears before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi within a period of two weeks from today and moves appropriate application, as per law, then the same shall be considered and decided, expeditiously, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties provided the applicant deposits the cost in the Court of C. J. M. , Varanasi. The amount, so deposited, shall be paid over to the opposite party No. 2 after due verifica tion. If the amount is not deposited within the said period the Magistrate is free to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law for realization of cost. .