Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal others, AIR

1. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 22.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0390 of 2024 under Sections 109(1), 324(4), 125, 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Mugara Badshahpur, District-Jaunpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

3. Learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the present writ petition has been preferred with concealment of material fact and only on this account, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. He has placed reliance on categorical averment, which is made in para-16 and 21 of the writ petition, wherein it is claimed that "the petitioners are innocent person and have been falsely implicated in above noted case. The petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged hence the petitioners are entitled for arrest stay in the said case and also the petitioners are law abiding and peace loving citizen of the society." The aforesaid averment is disputed by learned A.G.A. on the instructions, wherein it is disclosed that the first petitioner is having criminal history of 60 cases, which is not divulged in the writ petition. He further submitted that co-accused Pancham Prajapati is also having criminal history of 27 cases and co- accused Santosh is also having criminal antecedents of several cases. He next contended that both the co-accused persons namely, Pancham Prajapati and Santosh were arrested on the spot and later on the first petitioner was also arrested. He submits that only to get some reprieve in the present proceeding, the criminal antecedents had deliberately been suppressed, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

4. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has not prepared the writ petition and only brief was handed over. In case, the Court provides an opportunity, he may file an affidavit explaining all the cases mentioned in the criminal history. Therefore, at this stage he fairly concedes to the extent that he is not in a position to defend the categorical averment made in para-16 and 21 of the writ petition.

5. Heard rival submission and perused the record.

6. The present writ petition was filed on 13.12.2024. Initially, the matter was taken up on 03.01.2025 and on the said date, learned A.G.A. sought time to have instructions and it was directed to come up on 09.01.2025. The aforementioned categorical fact has been narrated in para-16 and 21 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioners claim to be innocent and law abiding person in the society having no criminal history at all. Innocently, the said categorical statement of fact cannot be made by an applicant, who has criminal history of several cases. In most of the cases, we find that the claim is set up in the body of the writ petitions on oath but later on, once an objection is raised by the State/respondents regarding criminal history of the petitioner(s), then innocently an affidavit is filed, whereby explanation of the criminal antecedents is given. It cannot be accepted in such fact, wherein the applicant on oath has stated in the writ petition that he is innocent and there is no criminal history against him at all. Such discrepancies cannot be allowed to be easily rectified later on through an affidavit at the time of hearing, whenever an objection is raised by the State/respondents.

7. The applicant must approach the Court with clean hands and with full description of the criminal antecedents. This omission cannot be accepted on the ground that the same is being made innocently, in fact the same seems to be a deliberately designed method to get some reprieve from the writ court on the incorrect statement of facts. The said omission or incorrect narration or not to provide complete description of the criminal antecedents cannot be accepted as an innocent case.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & others, AIR 2010 SC 255, had held that writ jurisdiction may not be misused and abused by the unscrupulous litigants. Hon'ble Apex Court in Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India 2006 (6) SCC 120, has held that it is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, when the material facts are suppressed. This Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court had repeatedly held that filing a petition or an application with false affidavit could be the basis for initiation of an action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons are required to be punished.

9. It is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is an equity jurisdiction. One must approach the Court with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective and a person, who has suppressed the material fact, is not entitled for adjudication on merits. As per settled law, the party, who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. The legal maxim "Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem", means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. Wide jurisdiction of the Court should not become a source of abuse of the process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the Court with clean hands.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, initially we had inclined to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost, but on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the cost is removed.

11. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as available in law. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Manish Himwan MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Suneel Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 22.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No.0390 of 2024 under Sections 109(1), 324(4), 125, 3(5) of B.N.S. and Section 11 of Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act and Section 3/25 of Arms Act, Police Station Mugara Badshahpur, District-Jaunpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case.

3. Learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the present writ petition has been preferred with concealment of material fact and only on this account, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. He has placed reliance on categorical averment, which is made in para-16 and 21 of the writ petition, wherein it is claimed that "the petitioners are innocent person and have been falsely implicated in above noted case. The petitioners have not committed any offence as alleged hence the petitioners are entitled for arrest stay in the said case and also the petitioners are law abiding and peace loving citizen of the society." The aforesaid averment is disputed by learned A.G.A. on the instructions, wherein it is disclosed that the first petitioner is having criminal history of 60 cases, which is not divulged in the writ petition. He further submitted that co-accused Pancham Prajapati is also having criminal history of 27 cases and co- accused Santosh is also having criminal antecedents of several cases. He next contended that both the co-accused persons namely, Pancham Prajapati and Santosh were arrested on the spot and later on the first petitioner was also arrested. He submits that only to get some reprieve in the present proceeding, the criminal antecedents had deliberately been suppressed, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

4. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has not prepared the writ petition and only brief was handed over. In case, the Court provides an opportunity, he may file an affidavit explaining all the cases mentioned in the criminal history. Therefore, at this stage he fairly concedes to the extent that he is not in a position to defend the categorical averment made in para-16 and 21 of the writ petition.

5. Heard rival submission and perused the record.

6. The present writ petition was filed on 13.12.2024. Initially, the matter was taken up on 03.01.2025 and on the said date, learned A.G.A. sought time to have instructions and it was directed to come up on 09.01.2025. The aforementioned categorical fact has been narrated in para-16 and 21 of the writ petition, wherein the petitioners claim to be innocent and law abiding person in the society having no criminal history at all. Innocently, the said categorical statement of fact cannot be made by an applicant, who has criminal history of several cases. In most of the cases, we find that the claim is set up in the body of the writ petitions on oath but later on, once an objection is raised by the State/respondents regarding criminal history of the petitioner(s), then innocently an affidavit is filed, whereby explanation of the criminal antecedents is given. It cannot be accepted in such fact, wherein the applicant on oath has stated in the writ petition that he is innocent and there is no criminal history against him at all. Such discrepancies cannot be allowed to be easily rectified later on through an affidavit at the time of hearing, whenever an objection is raised by the State/respondents.

7. The applicant must approach the Court with clean hands and with full description of the criminal antecedents. This omission cannot be accepted on the ground that the same is being made innocently, in fact the same seems to be a deliberately designed method to get some reprieve from the writ court on the incorrect statement of facts. The said omission or incorrect narration or not to provide complete description of the criminal antecedents cannot be accepted as an innocent case.

8. Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & others, AIR 2010 SC 255, had held that writ jurisdiction may not be misused and abused by the unscrupulous litigants. Hon'ble Apex Court in Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India 2006 (6) SCC 120, has held that it is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, when the material facts are suppressed. This Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court had repeatedly held that filing a petition or an application with false affidavit could be the basis for initiation of an action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons are required to be punished.

9. It is settled law that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is an equity jurisdiction. One must approach the Court with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective and a person, who has suppressed the material fact, is not entitled for adjudication on merits. As per settled law, the party, who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. The legal maxim "Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem", means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. Wide jurisdiction of the Court should not become a source of abuse of the process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the Court with clean hands.

10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, initially we had inclined to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost, but on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners, the cost is removed.

11. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as available in law. Order Date :- 27.1.2025 Manish Himwan MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad