Utkarsh Vardhan Saxena vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko.

1. This is an application seeking withdrawal of the writ petition.

2. Heard Shri Vishwas Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for respondents-State as well as Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. The application for withdrawal of the writ petition has been vehemently opposed by Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 by contending that the application for withdrawal of the writ petition if allowed unconditionally and without imposition of cost, the same would be giving a license to the petitioner for abuse of process of court in which he has indulged.

4. Elaborating the same, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 states that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition challenging the FIR No.441 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., 2023 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

5. When the matter had been taken up on 17.10.2025, a statement was given on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the dispute between the parties was matrimonial, there was a possibility of amicable settlement of the dispute between them through the process of mediation. It was also indicated that in order to show his bonafides, the petitioner was ready to pay Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.4. 2 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025

6. Upon the same being indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 had stated that the respondent No.4 was also ready to settle the dispute.

7. Considering the aforesaid, this Court had permitted the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre on 12.11.2025, on which date the petitioner was required to give a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.4. It was further provided that till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection to the impugned FIR.

8. Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has pointed out that despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- and neither has given the said amount to respondent No.4 nor did he appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court, which thus patently amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. He thus prays that even though the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn but some exemplary cost may be imposed against the petitioner for the abuse of the process of the court which has been adopted by the petitioner.

9. Responding Shri Vishwas Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that as the mediation is already pending before the A.D.R. Cell since 07.10.2025 as such he has advised the petitioner to withdraw the instant petition. However, he does not have any reason to indicate as to why the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- has neither been deposited nor paid to respondent No.4 as per the intention that had been expressed by him in the order dated 17.10.2025 or despite the aforesaid intention having been indicated, as to why he failed to appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court.

10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

11. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 17.10.2025 is reproduced hereunder:- "1.Heard Ms. Rushida Farheen, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of general and omnibus allegation, the impugned F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 0441 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, 2023 read with 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station East Commissionerate Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, has been lodged against the petitioner and his father and mother. He further states that as the dispute between 3 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025 the parties is matrimonial, there is a possibility of amicable settlement between the parties through the process of mediation and the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute. To show his bonafide, the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent no.4.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submitted that the respondent no.4 is also ready to settle the dispute.

4. Being matrimonial dispute, efforts for amicable settlement through the process of mediation can be made.

5. In view of the above, the matter is referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court, where the parties will appear on

12.11.2025, on which date the petitioner shall give a demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of respondent no.4 to her before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court and in case the amount is paid, the mediation shall proceed, failing which the petitioner shall not be entitled for any benefit of this order.

6. List this case in the first week of January, 2026 along with the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court.

7. Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the impugned F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 0441 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, 2023 read with 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station East Commissionerate Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow."

12. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it thus emerges that although the petitioner had approached this Court raising a challenge to the impugned FIR No.0441 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115(2) B.N.S., 2023 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, yet on the first date itself, learned counsel for the petitioner had indicated that there is a possibility of amicable settlement through the process of mediation and the petitioner was ready to settle the dispute and in order to show his bonafides, the petitioner was ready to pay Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.4.

13. As already indicated above, neither aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid to the respondent No.4, as fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor has he appeared before the mediation centre of this 4 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025 Court. In case mediation was pending before the A.D.R. Cell, nothing preclude or prevented the petitioner from indicating to this Court that on account of pendency of the mediation before the A.D.R. Cell he does not intend to settle the dispute amicably between the parties and accordingly there was no occasion for him to show his intention and his bonafides to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.4.

14. It is thus apparent that a false statement has been given before this Court apart from the fact that even the bonafides, as has been expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for paying the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- in order to settle the dispute amicably between the parties has not been adhered to. This clearly amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

15. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors : (2010) 2 SCC 114 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condemned litigants who use the justice system for their benefit and thereby attempt to pollute the streams of justice.

16. For the sake of convenience relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh (supra) are reproduced below:- “ In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

17. Aforesaid judgment has again been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Vithal Kevne vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr : 2024 INSC 1051.

18. Likewise, this Court in Criminal Misc Writ Petition No.9143 of 2025 In Re Ashish Kumar & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors where in similar circumstances a litigant had approached this Court duly indicating that he was willing to settle the matter by appearing before the Mediation Centre of this Court and in order to show his bonafides certain amount was also required to be deposited yet he failed to either deposit the said amount or appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court, as such this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2025 dismissed the said petition with an 5 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025 exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- which was required to be recovered, in case of non payment within a stipulated time as arrears of land revenue.

19. For the sake of convenience, relevant observations in the case of Ashish Kumar (supra) are reproduced hereunder:- "3. Perusal of aforesaid order emerges that a statement had been made on behalf of the petitioners that there is every likelihood of the parties settling the dispute in case is matter is referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court. Considering the aforesaid, this Court had issued the notice to the respondent no. 4 and also required that the petitioner no. 1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- before this Court within a period of ten days.

4. From the perusal of Office reports dated 18.11.2025 and 21.11.2025, it emerges that (a) the amount of Rs.25,000/- has not been deposited and (b) no steps has been taken for issuance of notice to the respondent no. 4. Even learned counsel for the petitioners is not present today.

5. Thus, prima facie, the only reason why a statement was made before this Court for sending the matter to the Mediation was to persuade this Court to grant an interim order in favour of the petitioners. The very conduct of the petitioners in not depositing the amount of Rs.25,000/- before this Court and in not taking steps for issuance of notice to the respondent no. 4 thus indicates patent abuse of process of Court.

6. Considering the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioners. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioners before the Legal Aid Cell of this Court within a period of four weeks, failing which, the amount shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue.

7. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Senior Registrar of this Court for taking appropriate action."

20. Again, this Court in Criminal Misc Case No.8971 of 2025 In Re Dr Nitin Tripathi & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors while considering the case of abuse of process of court in like circumstances has observed as under:- "9. When once the petitioners have totally resiled from what they have expressed before this Court on 26.09.2025 inasmuch as, neither a demand 6 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025 draft of Rs.40,000/- has been prepared nor any instructions have been given by the petitioners, as such, it is apparent that the petitioners have indulged in abuse of process of the Court by initially indicating their intention of settling the matter amicably and thereafter having totally resiled from the same despite an interim order having been granted in their favour on the basis of those intentions before the Court.

10. Considering the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

11. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.40,000/-. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioners with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee Lucknow within one month failing which the said cost shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue."

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade this Court to take a different view than what has been taken by us earlier in the cases of Ashish Kumar (supra) and Dr Nitin Tripathi (supra) as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pandurang Vithal Kevne (supra) and Dalip Singh (supra).

22. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, though the application for withdrawal of the writ petition is being allowed and the writ petition is being dismissed as withdrawn yet with an exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the High Court Legal Services Sub- Committee, Lucknow within a period of four weeks. In case of non deposit of the aforesaid amount, the said amount would be recovered as arrears of the land revenue. The reason why we impose a cost of Rs.50,000/- is that it was the same amount which the petitioner had expressed for paying to respondent No.4 in order to show his bonafides and since no bona fides have been found on the part of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that the said amount should be imposed as exemplary costs, and that nothing less than this amount would suffice.

23. Let a copy of this order be sent to Senior Registrar of this Court for appropriate action. December 9, 2025 prateek (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. This is an application seeking withdrawal of the writ petition.

2. Heard Shri Vishwas Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for respondents-State as well as Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

3. The application for withdrawal of the writ petition has been vehemently opposed by Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 by contending that the application for withdrawal of the writ petition if allowed unconditionally and without imposition of cost, the same would be giving a license to the petitioner for abuse of process of court in which he has indulged.

4. Elaborating the same, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 states that the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition challenging the FIR No.441 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3), 352 B.N.S., 2023 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Gomti Nagar, Lucknow.

5. When the matter had been taken up on 17.10.2025, a statement was given on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the dispute between the parties was matrimonial, there was a possibility of amicable settlement of the dispute between them through the process of mediation. It was also indicated that in order to show his bonafides, the petitioner was ready to pay Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.4. 2 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025

6. Upon the same being indicated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 had stated that the respondent No.4 was also ready to settle the dispute.

7. Considering the aforesaid, this Court had permitted the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre on 12.11.2025, on which date the petitioner was required to give a demand draft of Rs.50,000/- in the name of respondent No.4. It was further provided that till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection to the impugned FIR.

8. Shri Prashant Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has pointed out that despite the aforesaid order, the petitioner has failed to deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- and neither has given the said amount to respondent No.4 nor did he appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court, which thus patently amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. He thus prays that even though the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn but some exemplary cost may be imposed against the petitioner for the abuse of the process of the court which has been adopted by the petitioner.

9. Responding Shri Vishwas Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that as the mediation is already pending before the A.D.R. Cell since 07.10.2025 as such he has advised the petitioner to withdraw the instant petition. However, he does not have any reason to indicate as to why the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- has neither been deposited nor paid to respondent No.4 as per the intention that had been expressed by him in the order dated 17.10.2025 or despite the aforesaid intention having been indicated, as to why he failed to appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court.

10. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

11. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 17.10.2025 is reproduced hereunder:- "1.Heard Ms. Rushida Farheen, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A for the State and Sri Sarvesh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of general and omnibus allegation, the impugned F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 0441 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, 2023 read with 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station East Commissionerate Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow, has been lodged against the petitioner and his father and mother. He further states that as the dispute between 3 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025 the parties is matrimonial, there is a possibility of amicable settlement between the parties through the process of mediation and the petitioner is ready to settle the dispute. To show his bonafide, the petitioner is ready to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the respondent no.4.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submitted that the respondent no.4 is also ready to settle the dispute.

4. Being matrimonial dispute, efforts for amicable settlement through the process of mediation can be made.

5. In view of the above, the matter is referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court, where the parties will appear on

12.11.2025, on which date the petitioner shall give a demand draft of Rs. 50,000/- in the name of respondent no.4 to her before the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court and in case the amount is paid, the mediation shall proceed, failing which the petitioner shall not be entitled for any benefit of this order.

6. List this case in the first week of January, 2026 along with the report of the Mediation and Conciliation Center of this Court.

7. Till the next date of listing, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the impugned F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 0441 of 2025, under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) BNS, 2023 read with 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station East Commissionerate Gomti Nagar, District Lucknow."

12. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it thus emerges that although the petitioner had approached this Court raising a challenge to the impugned FIR No.0441 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115(2) B.N.S., 2023 and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, yet on the first date itself, learned counsel for the petitioner had indicated that there is a possibility of amicable settlement through the process of mediation and the petitioner was ready to settle the dispute and in order to show his bonafides, the petitioner was ready to pay Rs.50,000/- to respondent No.4.

13. As already indicated above, neither aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- has been paid to the respondent No.4, as fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor has he appeared before the mediation centre of this 4 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025 Court. In case mediation was pending before the A.D.R. Cell, nothing preclude or prevented the petitioner from indicating to this Court that on account of pendency of the mediation before the A.D.R. Cell he does not intend to settle the dispute amicably between the parties and accordingly there was no occasion for him to show his intention and his bonafides to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the respondent No.4.

14. It is thus apparent that a false statement has been given before this Court apart from the fact that even the bonafides, as has been expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner for paying the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- in order to settle the dispute amicably between the parties has not been adhered to. This clearly amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.

15. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors : (2010) 2 SCC 114 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condemned litigants who use the justice system for their benefit and thereby attempt to pollute the streams of justice.

16. For the sake of convenience relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh (supra) are reproduced below:- “ In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.”

17. Aforesaid judgment has again been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Vithal Kevne vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr : 2024 INSC 1051.

18. Likewise, this Court in Criminal Misc Writ Petition No.9143 of 2025 In Re Ashish Kumar & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors where in similar circumstances a litigant had approached this Court duly indicating that he was willing to settle the matter by appearing before the Mediation Centre of this Court and in order to show his bonafides certain amount was also required to be deposited yet he failed to either deposit the said amount or appear before the Mediation Centre of this Court, as such this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2025 dismissed the said petition with an 5 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025 exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- which was required to be recovered, in case of non payment within a stipulated time as arrears of land revenue.

19. For the sake of convenience, relevant observations in the case of Ashish Kumar (supra) are reproduced hereunder:- "3. Perusal of aforesaid order emerges that a statement had been made on behalf of the petitioners that there is every likelihood of the parties settling the dispute in case is matter is referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court. Considering the aforesaid, this Court had issued the notice to the respondent no. 4 and also required that the petitioner no. 1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- before this Court within a period of ten days.

4. From the perusal of Office reports dated 18.11.2025 and 21.11.2025, it emerges that (a) the amount of Rs.25,000/- has not been deposited and (b) no steps has been taken for issuance of notice to the respondent no. 4. Even learned counsel for the petitioners is not present today.

5. Thus, prima facie, the only reason why a statement was made before this Court for sending the matter to the Mediation was to persuade this Court to grant an interim order in favour of the petitioners. The very conduct of the petitioners in not depositing the amount of Rs.25,000/- before this Court and in not taking steps for issuance of notice to the respondent no. 4 thus indicates patent abuse of process of Court.

6. Considering the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioners. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioners before the Legal Aid Cell of this Court within a period of four weeks, failing which, the amount shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue.

7. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Senior Registrar of this Court for taking appropriate action."

20. Again, this Court in Criminal Misc Case No.8971 of 2025 In Re Dr Nitin Tripathi & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors while considering the case of abuse of process of court in like circumstances has observed as under:- "9. When once the petitioners have totally resiled from what they have expressed before this Court on 26.09.2025 inasmuch as, neither a demand 6 CRLP No. 9990 of 2025 draft of Rs.40,000/- has been prepared nor any instructions have been given by the petitioners, as such, it is apparent that the petitioners have indulged in abuse of process of the Court by initially indicating their intention of settling the matter amicably and thereafter having totally resiled from the same despite an interim order having been granted in their favour on the basis of those intentions before the Court.

10. Considering the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

11. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.40,000/-. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioners with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee Lucknow within one month failing which the said cost shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue."

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade this Court to take a different view than what has been taken by us earlier in the cases of Ashish Kumar (supra) and Dr Nitin Tripathi (supra) as well as by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Pandurang Vithal Kevne (supra) and Dalip Singh (supra).

22. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, though the application for withdrawal of the writ petition is being allowed and the writ petition is being dismissed as withdrawn yet with an exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner before the High Court Legal Services Sub- Committee, Lucknow within a period of four weeks. In case of non deposit of the aforesaid amount, the said amount would be recovered as arrears of the land revenue. The reason why we impose a cost of Rs.50,000/- is that it was the same amount which the petitioner had expressed for paying to respondent No.4 in order to show his bonafides and since no bona fides have been found on the part of the petitioner, the Court is of the view that the said amount should be imposed as exemplary costs, and that nothing less than this amount would suffice.

23. Let a copy of this order be sent to Senior Registrar of this Court for appropriate action. December 9, 2025 prateek (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench