SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manvendra Singh vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. … on 6 March, 2020


?Court No. – 9

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. – 5874 of 2020

Petitioner :- Manvendra Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Home Lko. Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Raman Mishra

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Suresh Kumar Mishra

Hon’ble Anil Kumar,J.

Hon’ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

Heard Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following main relief:-

“a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned first information report lodged by the opposite party no. 3 on 03.01.2020 vide F.I.R. No. 5 of 2020, under Sections – 498A, 323, 313, 506 I.P.C. and Sections – 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act at Police Station – Ghazipur, District – Lucknow, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, so far as it relates to the petitioner. ”

Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that before filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner has also moved an application for anticipatory bail before the court concerned, however, the said facts has not been stated in the present writ petition.

It is further stated by learned A.G.A. that by order dated 29.02.2020, the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected, copy of the said order has been produced before this Court, taken on record, so the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Learned counsel for petitioner while opposing the submission as made by learned A.G.A. submits that even if the application for anticipatory bail has been rejected then there is no legal impediment in his way to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for challenged the first information report.

After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record, the admitted position which emerged out is that before filing of the present writ petition, the petitioner has moved an application for anticipatory bail but the said fact has not been stated in the present writ petition rather the same has been concealed. The said act on the part of petitioner is nothing but amounts to suppression of material facts on the part of the petitioner.

“Keeping in view the said facts as well as the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India : (2007) 8 SCC 449, wherein ti has been held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court Court while referring to the judgment of Scrutton, LJ. in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, observed as under:-

“In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise-guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.”

In Welcome Hotel and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. etc. AIR 1983 SC 1015, the Apex Court has held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case.

In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.,[2008 (12) SCC 481] the Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and Ors. v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Ors.: (2009) 3 SCC 141.

In Dalip Singh Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114], the Apex Court seriously criticized the making of false statement on oath and the attempt of a litigant in misleading the Court.

It is settled law that one should approach the court with clean heart and clean mind to get a relief and one who does not come with clean heart and clean mind, dis-entitles himself from getting any relief from the Court. From what has been mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with oblique motives and has not presented the correct facts just to gain undue advantage. Such type of practice should always be discouraged and is highly deprecated. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice.

In Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, 2003 (Suppl.) 3 SCR 352, it was reiterated after referring to various earlier decisions of the Apex Court that fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material fact vitiates all solemn acts.

In State of Andhra Pradesh another Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao, AIR 2005 SC 3110, the Apex Court after referring to various earlier decisions held that suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the Court. The same view has been reiterated in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra others, AIR 2005 SC 3330.

In R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala others, JT 2004(1) SC 88 the Apex Court observed that a person, who seeks equity, must act in a fair and equitable manner.

In Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi Vs. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345, it was held that “if there appears on the part of a person, who has approached the Court, any attempt to overreach or mislead the Court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion has been exercised in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the time of hearing of the appeal”. The same view was reiterated and followed in Vijay Syal another Vs. State of Punjab others (2003) 9 SCC 401.

In addition to abovesaid facts, the aforesaid concealment is also amounts to make fraud on the court, so in view of the above said facts, Hon’ble Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation Vs. M/S GAR Re-Rolling Mills Anr,., AIR 1994 SC 2151; and State of Maharashtra Ors. Vs. Prabhu, (1994) 2 SCC 481, has observed that a writ court, while exercising its equitable jurisdiction, should not act as to prevent perpetration of a legal fraud as the Courts are obliged to do justice by promotion of good faith. Equity is, also, known to prevent the law from the crafty evasionss and subletties invented to evade law.

Hon’ble Apex Court in Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Brothers, AIR 1992 SC 1555, has held as under:-

“Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilised system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct.”

In United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh Ors., (2000) 3 SCC 581, the Apex Court observed that “Fraud and justice never dwell together” (fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries.

The ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in various cases is that dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit to the persons who played fraud or made misrepresentation and in such circumstances the Court should not perpetuate the fraud by entertaining the petitioners on their behalf.

In Union of India Ors. Vs. M.Bhaskaran, 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100, the Apex Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its earlier judgment in District Collector Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society. Vizianagaram Anr. Vs. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655, observed as under:-

“If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a Court of Law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable at the option of the employer.”

Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of S. Pratap Signh Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72;. Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi Ors., (2003) 8 SCC 319; and Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Anr. Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325.

Thus “Fraud” as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.””

In view of the abovesaid facts, we are of the considered opinion that present writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

(Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) (Anil Kumar, J.)

Order Date :- 6.3.2020/Ravi/



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation