Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2216 (HP)

Sunita Chaudhary v. State Of Himachal Pradesh

2018-12-14

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2018
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - By medium of this criminal revision petition, the petitioner has sought discharge from the charge of an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC framed in Criminal Case No.24/01 of 2011, tittled as ''State versus Sunita Chaudhary'' pending in the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, H.P. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition on the ground that the petitioner had earlier approached this Court with the same prayer and relief by filing Cr.MMO No.41 of 2011 which was decided against her on 21.06.2011 and this fact has conveniently been concealed by the petitioner and, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable. 3. A perusal of the judgment rendered in Cr.MMO No.41 of 2011 would reveal that an identical prayer was made therein, as is evident from para-1 of the judgment, which reads thus:- "This petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the proceedings in case No.24/1 of 2011 under Section 498-A IPC pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Court No.1, Paonta Sahib be quashed and set aside. 4. The said petition was dismissed, yet there is no murmur, much less reference in the body of the instant revision petition. 5. As a general rule, suppression of material facts by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by deceiving (Refer: SJS Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. versus State of Bihar and others , (2004) 7 SCC 166 .) 6. Shri Sandeep Datta, learned counsel for the petitioner, would still argue that since the earlier decision was rendered way back in the year 2011 and thereafter much water has flown, therefore, he did not think it appropriate to mention the fact regarding filing of the earlier petition or annexing a copy of the decision. 7. This argument, to the least, is fallacious for more than one reasons. Firstly, it is the obligation of the litigant to disclose all the facts of the case and leave the decision making to the Court as was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Ors. versus Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Ors. 7. This argument, to the least, is fallacious for more than one reasons. Firstly, it is the obligation of the litigant to disclose all the facts of the case and leave the decision making to the Court as was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Ors. versus Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society and Ors. , (2013) AIRSCW 34, which reads thus:- "46. It is not for a litigant to decide what fact is material for adjudicating a case and what is not material. It is the obligation of a litigant to disclose all the facts of a case and leave the decision making to the Court. True, there is a mention of the order dated 2nd May, 2003 in the order dated 24th July, 2006 passed by the JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The petitioners have not clearly disclosed the facts and circumstances in which the order dated 2nd May, 2003 was passed or that it has attained finality. 47. ....................... 48. ....................... 49. A mere reference to the order dated 2nd May, 2003, en passant, in the order dated 24th July, 2006 does not serve the requirement of disclosure. It is not for the Court to look into every word of the pleadings, documents and annexures to fish out a fact. It is for the litigant to come up-front and clean with all material facts and then, on the basis of the submissions made by learned counsel, leave it to the Court to determine whether or not a particular fact is relevant for arriving at a decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners have not done this and must suffer the consequence thereof. (Emphasis added)" 8. Apart from the above, the earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on merits by observing as under:- "3. Prima facie from the material on record placed by the State it appears that on the statement made by the complainant, it is alleged that the petitioner herein was also one of the persons responsible for harassing the petitioner for bringing insufficient dowry. At this stage, this Court will not sift the evidence with a fine tooth comb for ascertaining the veracity of the allegations. At this stage, this Court will not sift the evidence with a fine tooth comb for ascertaining the veracity of the allegations. The matter is before the trial Court and if it is found on the evidence that no offence has been committed by the petitioner, the result would obviously be acquittal, coupled with the right that the petitioner can always claim damages, if so permitted by law. In these circumstances, this petition is disposed of." 9. Once, earlier petition was dismissed on merits that too by way of a speaking order, then obviously, the present petition would otherwise be not maintainable, regardless of the fact that the judgment in the earlier case would have been filed. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition is not maintainable and in fact ought to have been dismissed with heavy costs. However, taking into consideration the persuasive submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court refrains from doing so. 11. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending application (s), if any.