SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Nasibul Rahman And Ors vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 9 May, 2019

Arising Out of P.S. Case No.-189 Year-2012 Thana- BISFI District- Madhubani

1. Nasibul Rahman, Son of Yasin Jat.

2. Jamila Khatoon Wife of Yasin Jat.

3. Hasibul Khatoon Son of Yasin Jat.

All residents of Village – Chamanpur, P.S. Singhwara, District – Darbhanga.

… … Petitioner/s

1. The State of Bihar

2. Annu Khatoon, D/o Late Md. Zainuddin resident of Village – Sasarma, P.S.
Bisfi, District – Madhubani.

… … Opposite Party/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Md. Shahnawaz Ali, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Satyendra Prasad, APP
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Ratnakar Jha, Advocate

Date : 09-05-2019

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned APP

for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. The petitioners have moved the Court under Section

482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the following


“That this is an application for quashing
of the cognizance order dated 3.10.12 for the
offence committed under Sectionsections 498A, Section323, Section494,
Section379, Section504/Section34 I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act by S.D.J.M.,
Madhubani in connection with Bisfi P.S. Case No.
189/2012 dated 28.06.2012.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4436 of 2015 dt.09-05-2019

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the opposite

party no. 2 submitted that in his counter affidavit he has

specifically taken the stand that the order which is impugned in

the present application was also challenged before the Sessions

Judge, Madhubani in Criminal Revision No. 493 of 2013. It was

submitted that the petitioner no. 2 had filed the revision in which

notice was issued to the opposite party no. 2 and later on the

revision was withdrawn on 13.05.2015. It was submitted that the

affidavit in the present case is of 19.01.2015, but nowhere in the

application it is mentioned that already a revision has been

preferred before the Sessions Judge, Madhubani by the petitioner

no. 2. It was submitted that at the relevant point, the petitioners

were pursuing two parallel remedies and also suppressing such

fact from this Court. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the

petitioners do not deserve any indulgence by this Court for such


4. When confronted with the same, learned counsel for

the petitioners submitted that due to wrong advise such revision

was preferred and further that he was not told that such revision

was filed.

Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4436 of 2015 dt.09-05-2019

5. Learned APP submitted that the petitioners have

suppressed material facts from the Court and, thus, have not come

with clean hands.

6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds substance in the objection raised by learned counsel for the

opposite party no. 2. The first and foremost requirement of any

person approaching the Court seeking relief in his cause is that he

has to come with clean hands by disclosing all relevant materials

and facts, irrespective of whether they support the person or go

against him. It is not the discretion of any person to choose as to

what facts he shall disclose and what facts he shall not disclose

before the Court. In the present case, a fact which has been

suppressed is not something which is minor or not much relevant

with the issue concerned and rather it is most vital for the reason,

that similar relief was sought before two different Courts by

invoking different provisions of law and such fact has been

absolutely not even mentioned in the present application. The

Court cannot give benefit of doubt or ignorance in the matter to

the petitioners for the reason that if they had filed a case before

the lower Court itself, then when they had entrusted the brief to

learned counsel in the High Court, they were fully aware that a
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4436 of 2015 dt.09-05-2019

case had also been filed before the Court below and not disclosing

such fact to their counsel clearly is a conduct which needs to be

taken serious note of. The Court need not over-emphasize that

nothing should be allowed to be done so as to vitiate the purity of

a judicial proceeding for it shakes the very root of the institution.

In other words, by suppressing such fact, clearly the indication

and inference is that an attempt has been made to take a

favourable order from the Court by not bringing to its notice facts

which may act as an impediment or which may persuade the Court

not to interfere in the matter.

7. In the present case, at the cost of repetition, the

petitioner no. 2 having filed a criminal revision petition

challenging the same order of cognizance, which is impugned in

the present proceeding, though under the revisional power, which

is a concurrent power of the Court of Sessions as well as the High

Court and, then preferring the present application under Section

482 of the Code, which is the exclusive inherent power of the

High Court, for the same cause at the same time, is clearly an

attempt to overreach the law and an abuse of the process of the


8. For reasons aforesaid, the application stands


Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.4436 of 2015 dt.09-05-2019

9. The Court was further of the opinion that cost be

imposed. However, on prayer made by learned counsel for the

petitioners, seeking apology on the ground of their unfamiliarity

with the legal process, the Court, without accepting such plea, by

way of indulgence, refrains from doing so.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

P. Kumar


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