JUDGMENT 1. This petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing F.I.R./Case Crime No.0840 of 2015, under Sections 323, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Gazipur, District Lucknow. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner, alongwith Power of Attorney of Shri Vinayajit Lal Varma, Advocate is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that evidently false statement has been made in the writ petition, on account of which order dated 26.11.2015 came to be passed. It has been stated that let this petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh because essentially, the impugned criminal proceedings have been initiated on account of matrimonial dispute. Petitioner and respondent no.4 are husband and wife. 4. We have considered the contention of learned counsel. Order dated 26.11.2015 reads as under : - "1. The petition seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing First Information Report bearing Case Crime No.0840 of 2015 under Sections 323, 406, 419,420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 Indian Penal Code, Police Station Gajipur District Lucknow. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner and respondent no. 4 are husband and wife. Allegedly, there is a joint property. The petitioner took loan on the property while forging signatures of respondent no. 4. 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that loan transaction is not yet complete in so much as loan amount has not been disbursed. Learned counsel states that the property would be got released from the charge of loan if three weeks time is given to the petitioner. 4. The court has been informed that the marriage is still subsisting and possibly impugned proceedings have been initiated on the instigation of inlaws of the petitioner. 5. Shri Abhishek Misra, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 4 and filed counter affidavit, which is taken on record. 6. List on 15.12.2015. It is made clear that in case the property is not released from the charge of loan, the petition would be dismissed. 7. Arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of listing." 5. Counter affidavit dated 26.11.2015 filed on behalf of the complainant/respondent no.4, is taken on record. 6. List on 15.12.2015. It is made clear that in case the property is not released from the charge of loan, the petition would be dismissed. 7. Arrest of the petitioner shall remain stayed till the next date of listing." 5. Counter affidavit dated 26.11.2015 filed on behalf of the complainant/respondent no.4, is taken on record. In response to averments made in paras 9 to 11 of the petition, the following has been stated by the complainant/respondent no.4 : - "9. That with respect to paragraph no 9 to 11 it is submitted that contents are denied as stated. It is further submitted that after misguiding the opposite party no 4, the petitioner purchased the house situated at 17/3 Indira Nagar Lucknow after encashing immature fixed deposits and Life Insurance policies. It is further stated that the full price of the house was arranged by the opposite party no 4 only. In the year 2008 the petitioner took a loan of Rs. 14 Lac from the bank without the consent and knowledge of the opposite party no 4. It is further submitted that inspite of facts that the opposite party no 4 was the co-owner of the house, neither she put any signature on any loan document nor visited nor applied any loan. That it is further submitted that without clearing the earlier loan, the petitioner again took a loan of Rs.40 Lac from ICICI bank. From the money received from ICICI bank he cleared the previous loan and rest money was spent on living a luxurious life. That the petitioner again took a loan of Rs. 1,33,33,285 (One crore thirty three lacs, thirty three thousand and two hundred eighty five rupees) from DHFL with EMI of Rs.1,70,169 per month and 180 EMI's were required to pay as such the total amount becomes 3,06,30,420 (Rs Three crore six Lac thirty thousand and four hundred twenty). It is relevant to mention here that no loan paper was signed by the O.P. No 4 rather power of attorney, affidavit, undertaking, affidavit cum undertaking were signed by the petitioner only who also put the signatures of O.P. No 4. All the papers were submitted before the police along with the application forming the part of FIR. These documents are not annexed with the writ petition showing the malafide intentions of the petitioner. All the papers were submitted before the police along with the application forming the part of FIR. These documents are not annexed with the writ petition showing the malafide intentions of the petitioner. The true photocopy of the aforesaid papers are being annexed here as annexure no.CA2. That it is further relevant to mention here that out of the money received from DHFL, the petitioner paid Rs 24,66,133 and Rs 32,69,943 to ICICI bank. The true photocopy of payment reference are being annexed here with as annexure no. CA3." 6. The factual position clarified by the respondent complainant in the above extracted paragraphs, has been admitted by the petitioner. 7. Considering the fact that knowingly a false statement has been made to the writ court on affidavit, no ground for interference in the writ petition, is made out. Writ court is a court of equity. A person who approaches the court with clean hands is entitled to get relief. Allegedly, the petitioner committed a criminal offence of serious nature, including that of forgery. The contents of counter affidavit prima facie demonstrates commission of offence by the petitioner. 8. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we deny request made on behalf of the petitioner to give liberty to file writ petition, afresh, for the reason that the false statement has been made before the court in writing on oath, whereupon interim direction was granted. The facts were clarified by the respondents by way of filing counter affidavit. The said facts are admitted by the petitioner. 9. No ground for interference in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction is made out. 10. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.