Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 239 (ALL)

Islam and Others v. State of U. P. and Others

2013-01-18

DHARNIDHAR JHA, RAMESH SINHA

body2013
Ramesh Sinha, J.— We have heard Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned counsel on behalf of petitioners, namely, Islam, Maley, Haseena, Shadat, Israr, Asfaq, Tasrul, Riyaz, Kishwari, Vali Sher Khan and Ruksana Begum and learned A.G.A. for the State. In pursuance to our order passed on 22.3.2012, by which we have issued notice to the petitioners to explain as to why they should not be appropriately punished for misinforming the counsel and thereby duped this Court into an embarrassing situation by concealing some material facts which we have noted in our order dated 22.3.2012 and thus were attempting to mislead the Court in falling in error in passing the judgment and order which the Court should not have passed under the appropriate information. The petitioners have appeared and filed their show cause. The petitioners are accused in Case Crime No. 1412 of 2011 under Sections 498-A, 364 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act. They had preferred a Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) No. 207 of 2012 and the learned Single Judge, who heard that petition in the light of some of decisions of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another vs. State of U.P., reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 and in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (322) (SC) directed the petitioners to appear before the court below and get an order in the light of the law settled down by those decisions. The petitioners did not appear in time. They sought extension of time which was set down earlier by the learned Single Judge and the Court again showed its indulgence by extending the time which had been set down by its order dated 4.1.2012 and directed that in case the petitioners did not appear within two weeks of the order dated 7.2.2012, coercive actions were to be initiated against the petitioners. That particular order being very much in existence as we have just noted, the petitioners preferred the present criminal misc. writ petition and sought the same relief in the nature of mandamus to direct the police officers not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the above noted case crime. That particular order being very much in existence as we have just noted, the petitioners preferred the present criminal misc. writ petition and sought the same relief in the nature of mandamus to direct the police officers not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the above noted case crime. When the matter was taken up by this Court, the information regarding the order which was passed by the learned Single Judge of the Court in petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. directing the petitioners to surrender in the court below by its order dated 4.1.2012 and the extension which was granted with some rider by order dated 7.2.2012, were concealed from the Court. In fact, it was nowhere stated in the petition that the petitioners had ever preferred any 482-Cr.P.C.-petition in which the Court showed its indulgence by passing two orders as we have just noted. Finding that similar reliefs are being sought by the petitioners in the present petition, we issued the notice. Submission was that petitioner no.1, Islam had sworn the affidavit in the present writ petition and petitioner no.6 Asfaq had sworn the affidavit in 482 Cr.P.C. application and other petitioners had no knowledge either of the order passed on the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or the order extending time nor they were aware of the presentation of the present writ petition with the prayer which had already been made in the application 482 Cr.P.C. We are not ready to subscribe to the submission which was advanced before us because the power which has been filed with the present criminal misc. writ petition bears the signatures of all the accused persons. This is a full fledged power showing the authorization to the counsel to appear before the Court on behalf of all the accused persons to prosecute the petition. We further find that Asfaq, petitioner no.6, who was signing the authorization slip in lieu of full fledged Vakalatnama and was instructing the counsel Sri Ashish Goel on behalf of all accused persons, was the full brother of petitioners Islam, Shahadat, Israr and was the son of petitioner no.2 Maaley. The family is one and the same, headed by petitioner no.2. What appears from the records of criminal Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the present criminal misc. The family is one and the same, headed by petitioner no.2. What appears from the records of criminal Misc. application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the present criminal misc. writ petition is that they were seeking the reliefs together as all accused persons were arrayed as applicants in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as in the present writ petition. No need to point out that they were accused in the same case crime number and if liberty of one accused was at stake, it would be at stake as regards the other accused persons in a situation of being family members. We may note that every family member could be worried about the liberties and safety of other family members and shall pursue the matter for his safety and benefit. We can say that it could be the concented decision of the entire family to file the earlier application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to file the subsequent writ petition which was listed before us. As such, we reject the submission that the petitioners except Islam or Asfaq could not be having the knowledge about the filing of the subsequent writ petition after having obtained two orders on 4.1.2012 and 7.2.2012. It was definitely, in our opinion, an act serious enough in its amplitude that the facts of obtaining orders twice in 482 Cr.P.C. petition had been concealed not only from the counsel but also from this Court so as to dupe the Court in passing an order. Section 177 I.P.C. runs as under:- "Furnishing false information. It was definitely, in our opinion, an act serious enough in its amplitude that the facts of obtaining orders twice in 482 Cr.P.C. petition had been concealed not only from the counsel but also from this Court so as to dupe the Court in passing an order. Section 177 I.P.C. runs as under:- "Furnishing false information. Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." As may appear from the ingredients of Section 177, the petitioners were legally bound to furnish the information on the subject, i.e., of having obtained orders twice in respect of protecting their liberties in a particular case and that information was bound to be put into the knowledge of authorities, like, the Judges of the Court like us, as is required by the ordinary practice and it is expected from the litigant that he may come with clean hands, if, he seeks an equitable relief of protecting his liberties through the orders of a Court. The information of obtaining two repeated orders from the Court on an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was very much within the knowledge of the petitioners and they were not furnishing the said information to us. To the contrary, they were making averments as if there had been no order in their favour and their liberties were at stake, which required the intervention of this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction to safeguard their liberties. The very statement that they required a protective order from this Court was absolutely a false statement. In our considered view this is where we hold that the petitioners appear falling within the purview of Section 177. The very statement that they required a protective order from this Court was absolutely a false statement. In our considered view this is where we hold that the petitioners appear falling within the purview of Section 177. Undisputedly, the offence was committed in our presence and Section 345 Cr.P.C. empowers a Court to take cognizance of an offence, if it is committed in its presence and accordingly issue notice to show cause which we had done. On being satisfied on material we have just indicated, we find that the 11 petitioners of the present criminal misc. writ petition were guilty of having committed an offeence under Section 177. We as such direct each of the petitioners to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- each within a month's time, i.e., latest by 20th February, 2013. In case of default in payment of fine, the petitioners shall undergo simple imprisonment of fifteen days. The present writ petition stands disposed of in the light of above observations. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the C.J.M., Budaun for its compliance. If the fine is not deposited in time, the C.J.M., Budaun shall issue non bailable warrants against each of the petitioners under the provisions of Cr.P.C. which are set down for receipt and realization of fine. _____________