Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2160 (ALL)

Poonam and Anr. v. State of U. P. and 3 Others

2013-08-26

RAJESH DAYAL KHARE

body2013
Lawyers are on strike today. Sri R.D.Yadav, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4 by filing his power today in the Court which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present habeas corpus writ petition has been filed with the allegation that the petitioner no.2 who is the husband of the petitioner no.1-corpus, namely Smt. Poonam who has been illegally detained by the respondent no.4, father of the corpus. 3. This Court vide order dated 27.06.2013 had directed the respondent no.2 to ensure presence of the corpus and respondent no.4 before this Court on the next date fixed. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the corpus namely, Smt. Poonam has been produced before this Court by Sub-Inspector, namely, Yogendra Singh and Lady Constable namely, Lovely Patel of Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly. 4. The corpus Ms. Poonam has stated before this Court that she does not know the petitioner no.2 nor she has authorised him to file this Hebeas Corpus Writ Petition before this Court. She further states that she has come to this Court with the respondent no.4 the father of the corpus and wants to go with him. The statement of the corpus who is identified by Sri R. D.Yadav learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has been recorded separately in the order sheet of this case. 5. This intentional concealment of fact amounts to paying fraud upon the Court by filing a false affidavit to mislead the Court, with the result that not only the reputation of the corpus, but also her family members was put at stake. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not meant for the such a thing, which has been done in the present case. 6. It is well settled principles of law that when a person approaches the Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands, but also with clean mind, clear heart and clean objective (The Ramjas Foundation & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852 ; K.R. Sriniwas Vs. R.M. Premchand & Ors., ( 1994 6 SCC 620 ). Thus, who seeks equity must do equity. Vs. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852 ; K.R. Sriniwas Vs. R.M. Premchand & Ors., ( 1994 6 SCC 620 ). Thus, who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim "Jure Naurae Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fien Locupletiorem", means that it is the law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury of the other. 7. Identically, 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 justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petition. (Nooruddin Vs. Dr. K.L. Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242 ; Dr. Budhi Kota Subbarao Vs. K. Parasaran & Ors., ; AIR 1996 SC 2687 ; and Ramniklal N. Bhutta & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors, AIR 1997 SC 1236 ). 8. In Tilokchand Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898 ; State of Haryana Vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 781 ; and Sabia Khan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 271 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition 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. 9. In Agriculture & Processed Food Products Vs. Oswal Agro Furane, AIR 1996 SC 1947 , the Apex Court had taken a serious objection in a case filed by suppressing the material facts and held that if a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact then his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts" While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance upon the Judgment in Kind Vs. Thus, a litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts" While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance upon the Judgment in Kind Vs. General Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486, wherein it has been observed:- "Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of its merits....." 10. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai and another, 2003 AIR SCW 14; and S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 2421 , the Hon'ble 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. However, the suppressed fact must be material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have led to having a very different outcome on the merit of the case. 11. Legal maxim "Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur" means that a right cannot arise out of wrong doing, and it becomes applicable in case like this. 12. The facts stated above also amply depict that the manner in which the petition has been drafted exposes the petitioners to be prosecuted for criminal Contempt. It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the Court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narain Das Vs. It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the Court and obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narain Das Vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1974 SC 1252 has held as under :- "Now there can be no doubt that if a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and wilfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order, it would prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding, and thus, amount to contempt of Court." 13. In Afzal & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2326 ; and Mohan Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh, (1998) 6 SCC 686 , the Apex Court held that a false and a misleading statement deliberately 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 under 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" 14. In the present case, Anuj Pal Singh, who has filed the present habeas corpus petition on behalf of Ms. Poonam has deliberately and intentionally suppressed the material facts for reasons which are obvious. 15. In view of the statement which has been made by the corpus Ms. Poonam, it is apparent that she is not under illegal detention. Accordingly, the present habeas corpus petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. As the corpus is major, she is free to live according to her wishes. 16. 15. In view of the statement which has been made by the corpus Ms. Poonam, it is apparent that she is not under illegal detention. Accordingly, the present habeas corpus petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. As the corpus is major, she is free to live according to her wishes. 16. For the reasons stated above, the present habeas corpus petition is dismissed with costs, and Anuj Pal Singh, the petitioner no.2 shall pay a cost of Rs.25,000/- which amount is to be deposited within one month from today before the Registrar General of this Court, for filing this frivolous petition by suppressing material facts and in case, the aforesaid amount is not deposited, then registry is directed to inform the district administration regarding non-compliance of order of this Court, so that appropriate action may be taken against petitioner no.2. 17. The amount of costs so deposited by the petitioner no.2 before the Registrar General of this Court shall be paid over to the corpus Ms. Poonam after due verification. 18. Sri R.D.Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 undertakes to inform Sri I.K.Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners about the order passed today in writing within 48 hours. 19. Accordingly, the petition lacks merits and is dismissed. _____________