# Alok Mitra Jaiswal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1186
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-17
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 9084 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alok-mitra-jaiswal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-51324
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 466,
2 All. Alok Mitra Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1187
467, 468 & 471 - Two applications under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.-seeking quashing of the
charge-sheet, summoning order, and entire
criminal proceedings-arose from the same
criminal case. In the first application, although
the St. filed a counter affidavit, it was not
pressed. The Court observed that, - (i)
procedural
directions
were
issued
across
multiple dates, including orders for affidavit
filings and personal appearances of deponents;
maintainability
concerns
emerged
as
the
affidavit was sworn by someone other than the
applicant, resulting in repeated adjournments
due to counsel's illness. Despite objections from
the St. and private respondents, interim
protection was extended - (ii) a civil suit for
permanent injunction between the parties
remains pending, and the petitioners argued the
dispute is civil in nature, sought quashing of
criminal proceedings - (iii) the petitioners are
deliberately suppressed the material facts from
the
court,
including
the
existence
and
restoration of a previously dismissed writ
petition with extended interim protection,
despite the filing of the charge-sheet and
issuance of cognizance and summons - held -
litigants 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 - Accordingly, both
applications were dismissed - however, liberty
was granted to the aged petitioner to surrender
and seek bail, which the trial court shall
consider
expeditiously
under
Section
437
Cr.P.C., & ors. petitioners may file discharge
applications, which must be adjudicated strictly
in accordance with law through reasoned and
speaking orders.
(Para - 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25)

Applications are Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

1186 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
upon in defence and only this much has to
be seen as to whether a case for trial of the
accused is made out by the allegations
levelled in the complaint / FIR and the
material collected by the prosecution
Secondly, the Superintendent of Police is a
responsible
superior
officer
and
his
personal affidavit cannot be doubted by this
Court to the extent that it may give rise to a
ground for quashing of the proceedings.

31. The learned Counsel for the
applicant has also relied upon a judgment
in the case of Rajaram Sharma versus
State of U.P., Criminal Appeal No. 63 of
2024. In that case, the appeal was allowed
and the proceedings were quashed after
recording a satisfaction that the ingredients
necessary to constitute the offences under
Sections 420, 406, 504 and 506 IPC were
not made out, whereas it is not so in the
present case.

32. Daughter of the informant has
filed First Appeal No. 936 of 2021 in this
High Court sitting at Allahabad challenging
the decree of divorce granted by the Family
Court and, therefore, the findings of the
Family Court have not yet attained finality.
Although an interim order dated 29.11.2021
was passed in First Appeal No. 963 of 2021
staying the operation and effect of the
judgment/decree
of
divorce
dated
21.10.2021,
the
appellant
No.1
has
performed a second marriage. When the
entire facts and circumstances of the case
are scrutinized keeping in view this
conduct of the applicant no. 1, in light of
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Taramani Parakh (Supra), it
appears that the uncontroverted allegations
as made from the record of the case prima
facie establish the offence. This Court
cannot take into consideration the materials
relied upon by the accused persons for
reaching the conclusion that no offence was
disclosed or that there was possibility of his
acquittal. The Court has to consider the
record and documents annexed therewith
by the prosecution. This Court cannot
unduly interfere by examining the evidence
meticulously for considering whether the
case would end in conviction or not at the
stage quashing of charge. The allegations
taken constitute a case for trial of the
applicants and the criminal proceedings are
not an abuse of the process of court leading
to injustice.

33. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, there is no good ground to
quash the proceedings of the criminal case
against the applicants. The application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. lacks merits and
the same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1186
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 9084 of 2023
AND
Application u/s 482 No. 10202 of 2023

Alok Mitra Jaiswal & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Shiv Prakash Dwivedi

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Ajai Kumar, Vivek Kumar Rai

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 120-B, 420, 465, 466,
2 All. Alok Mitra Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1187
467, 468 & 471 - Two applications under
Section 482 Cr.P.C.-seeking quashing of the
charge-sheet, summoning order, and entire
criminal proceedings-arose from the same
criminal case. In the first application, although
the St. filed a counter affidavit, it was not
pressed. The Court observed that, - (i)
procedural
directions
were
issued
across
multiple dates, including orders for affidavit
filings and personal appearances of deponents;
maintainability
concerns
emerged
as
the
affidavit was sworn by someone other than the
applicant, resulting in repeated adjournments
due to counsel's illness. Despite objections from
the St. and private respondents, interim
protection was extended - (ii) a civil suit for
permanent injunction between the parties
remains pending, and the petitioners argued the
dispute is civil in nature, sought quashing of
criminal proceedings - (iii) the petitioners are
deliberately suppressed the material facts from
the
court,
including
the
existence
and
restoration of a previously dismissed writ
petition with extended interim protection,
despite the filing of the charge-sheet and
issuance of cognizance and summons - held -
litigants 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 - Accordingly, both
applications were dismissed - however, liberty
was granted to the aged petitioner to surrender
and seek bail, which the trial court shall
consider
expeditiously
under
Section
437
Cr.P.C., & ors. petitioners may file discharge
applications, which must be adjudicated strictly
in accordance with law through reasoned and
speaking orders.
(Para - 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, 24, 25)

Applications are Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Mohammed Ibrahim & ors. Vs St. of Bihar &
anr. reported in [(2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 929],

2. Pratibha Vs Rameshwari Devi, (2007) 12 SCC
369,

3. K.D Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India
Limited & ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481,

4. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P.& ors., (2010) 2
SCC 114

5. In K. Jayaram & ors. Vs Bangalore
Development Authority & ors., (2022) 12 SCC
816,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shiv
Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
petitioners in Crl. Misc. Case No. 9084 of
2023 (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.), Sri Rao Narendra
Singh and Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh,
learned AGA for the State as well as Sri
Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for
private opposite party no. 2.

2. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai,
learned counsel for the petitioner in Crl.
Misc. Case No. 10202 of 2023 (u/s 482
Cr.P.C.), Sri Rao Narendra Singh and Sri
Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA for
the State as well as Sri Vivek Kumar Rai,
learned counsel for private opposite party
no. 2.

3. Notably, both the aforesaid cases
arise out of the same criminal proceedings,
therefore, with the consent of the parties,
both the petitions are decided together.

4. In the case of Alok Mitra Jaiswal
and others, [Crl. Misc. Case No. 9084 of
2023 (u/s 482 Cr.P.C.)]. though learned
AGA has filed counter affidavit but he is
not pressing the same making request that
the present matter may be decided on the
basis of material available on record and
also on the basis of arguments so advanced
by learned counsel for the parties.

5. Since learned AGA has not pressed
his
counter
affidavit,
therefore,
the
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
opportunity to file rejoinder affidavit to
learned counsel for the petitioners is not
given.

6. By means of aforesaid petition
bearing Crl. Misc. Case No. 9084 of 2023
(u/s 482 Cr.P.C.), the petitioners have
prayed the following relief:

"Wherefore, it is most humble
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly
be
pleased to
quash
the
impugned
cognizance order dated 11.08.2023 as well
as Chargesheet No. 01/dated-09.08.2023 in
case crime No. 0298/2023, Under Section120-B, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.,
Criminal Case No. 7812/2023, bearing
name State V/S Alok Mitra & Others,
Police Station- Kotwali Nagar, DisttSultanpur which is passed by Chief Judicial
Magistrate,
Court
No.
16,
DistrictSultanpur in the interest of justice.

It is further prayed that the
further proceeding in pursuance to the
impugned
Cognizance
order
dated
11.08.2023 as well as Charge sheet No.
01/dated-09.08.2023 in case crime no.
0298/2023, Under Section- 120-B, 420,
465, 466, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. Criminal
Case No. 7812/2023, bearing name State
V/S Alok Mitra & Others, Police StationKotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur which is
passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 16, District-Sultanpur be stayed during
the pendency of petition before this Hon'ble
Court."

7. By means of aforesaid petition
bearing Crl. Misc. Case No.10202 of 2023
(u/s 482 Cr.P.C.), the petitioner has prayed
the following relief:

"to quash the entire criminal
proceedings including charge sheet of criminal
case no. 7812 of 2023 relating to case crime no.
298 of 2023, under Section 120-B, 420, 465,
466, 467, 468 & 471 IPC of Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur, pending in
the court of learned C.J.M., Sultanpur, in the
interest of justice.

It is further most respectfully prayed
that this Hon'ble court may graciously be
pleased to stay the further proceedings of
criminal case no. 7812 of 2023 relating to case
crime no. 0298 of 2023, under section 120-B,
420, 465, 466, 467, 468 & 471 IPC, of Police
Station Kotwali Nagar, District-Sultanpur,
pending in the court of learned C.J.M.
Sultanpur, pending in the court of C.J.M.
Sultanpur, till the final disposal of this petition,
in the interest of justice."

8. In the case of Alok Mitra Jaiswal and
Others, this Court has passed the order dated
19.09.2023 which reads as under:

"Sri Vivek Kumar Rai and Sri Ajai
Kumar, advocates, have put in appearance by
way of filing vakalatnama on behalf of opposite
party no. 2 and the same is taken on record.

Office is directed to print the name of
Sri Vivek Kumar Rai and Sri Ajai Kumar as
counsels for opposite party no. 2, on the next
date of listing.

Learned counsel for opposite party
no. 2 submits that he will file counter affidavit
within a period of two weeks.

A week time thereafter, shall be
available to counsel for the applicants to file
rejoinder affidavit, if any.

List/put up this matter in the week
commencing 30.10.2023."

9. In the case of Achchhe Lal Jaiswal, this
Court
has
passed
the
orders
dated
19.12.2023, 08.01.2024 and 10.01.2024
which respectively read as under:

"1. Counter affidavits filed by
learned A.G.A. for the State and learned
2 All. Alok Mitra Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1189
counsel for the private respondent are
taken on record.

2. Heard Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned
counsel for the applicant, learned counsel
for the private respondent and learned
A.G.A. for the State.

3. Learned A.G.A. informs that
the present petition/application is filed by
Achchhe Lal Jaiswal s/o late Ram Adhar
Jaiswal r/o B-8-9, Sector- 1, Devendra
Nagar, City Center Mall, District- Rapur,
Chhattisgarh and in support the present
petition/application, the affidavit is filed by
Varun Jaiswal s/o Alok Mitra Jaiswal,
Aadhar Card No. 263220760644, r/o
Village, Alahdadpur, Lohramau By-pass
Road, N.H. 56, Police Station- Kotwali
Dehat, Sultanpur which is not maintainable
as in the criminal cases, it is obligatory on
the part of applicant that affidavit should
be filed by him.

4. Mr. S.P. Gupta, who appears
on behalf of applicant, informs that Mr.
Ashok Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel for
the applicant is arguing counsel in the
present case. He requests that due to illness
of Mr Ashok Kumar Bajpai, the matter may be
listed on some other date.

5.
Accordingly,
the
above
request/prayer is allowed.

6. List this case on 08.01.2024 within
top ten cases.

7. On the next date, deponent shall
appear in person before this Court.

8. On the next date, learned counsel
for the applicant will explain this fact that why
the affidavit of applicant is not filed. In case, the
counsel for the applicant fails to assist the court
then the interim order shall be vacated
automatically.

9. In the meantime, learned counsel
for the applicant may file rejoinder affidavit.

10. Interim order, granted earlier
vide order dated 18.10.2023, shall continue till
the next date of listing."

***

"1. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rao
Narendra Singh and Sri Anirudh Kumar Singh,
learned AGA for the State and Sri Vivek Kumar
Rai, learned counsel for the opposite party no.
2.

2. In terms of the order of the Court
the deponent is present before the Court.

3. On the request of learned counsel
for the parties, list / put up on 10.1.2024 within
top ten cases.

4. Interim order to continue till the
next date of listing.

5. The deponent shall again appear
in person in terms of the order of the Court."

***

"Heard Ms. Kadambani Lal, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rao
Narendra Singh and Mr. Anirudh Kumar,
learned AGA for the State and Sri Vivek Kumar
Rai, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

In terms of the order dated
08.01.2024 the deponent namely Varun
Jaiswal son of Alok Mitra Jaiswal is
present in person.

Ms Kadambani Lal has filed
supplementary affidavit on behalf of the
petitioner, the same is taken on record. The
petitioner is a deponent in the aforesaid
supplementary affidavit and has stated the
reason, in paragraph 3, as to why he could
not file the affidavit at the time of filing this
petition.

Ms Kadambani Lal has stated
that her senior Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai is
ill today, therefore he could not come to the
Court. She has requested for short
adjournment of the present case on the
ground of illness of her senior. However,
learned AGA for the State as well as
learned counsel for the private party have
raised strong objections on the aforesaid
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
request by submitting that after the interim
order having been granted in favour of the
petitioner, the case is being adjourned on
the request of learned counsel for the
petitioner for one reason or another. They
have drawn the attention of this Court
towards the order dated 19.12.2023, on
that date the case was adjourned on the
illness of Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai.

Vakalatnama
reveals
that
alongwith Sri Ashok Kumar Bajpai, the
vakalatnama has also been signed by Sri
Abhishek Kumar, Sri Belal Ahmad, Ms.
Kadambani Lal and Surendra Prasad
Gupta.

Considering the request of Ms.
Kadambani Lal the case is adjourned for
today.

List this case on 17.01.2024
alongwith application under Section 482
bearing No.9084 of 2023, in the additional
cause list as first case. This case shall be
taken up immediately after fresh cases.
Learned counsel for the parties may make
mention of this case for taking out of turn.
It is made clear that this case shall not be
adjourned on the next date and if Sri Ashok
Kumar Bajpai does not recover by the next
date, any other counsel may address the
Court.

Interim order to continue till the
next date of listing."

10. In the petition of Achchhe Lal
Jaiswal (supra), it has been indicated in
Para 9 that the co-accused Alok Mitra
Jaiswal and Smt. Pramila Jaiswal have filed
a Regular Suit in the nature of permanent
injunction bearing Regular Suit No. 421 of
2016 against the petitioner and opposite
party no. 2 and others alongwith injunction
application, in which learned Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Court no. 15, Sultanpur
has granted injunction vide order dated
15.02.2023 (Annexure No. 3). However, in
the petition of Achchhe Lal Jaiswal, the
deponent is one Varun Jaiswal S/o Alok
Mitra Jaiswal.

11. The learned counsel for the
petitioners in both the petitions have stated
that
their
Regular
Suit
is
pending
consideration before the Civil Court and
the issue in question is civil in nature,
therefore, till disposal of the aforesaid Civil
Suit, the impugned criminal proceedings
may be quashed and set aside. In support of
his argument, Sri Jyotindra Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate has drawn attention of this
Court towards the judgement of Apex
Court rendered in the case of Mohammed
Ibrahim and Others Vs. State of Bihar
and Another reported in [(2009) 3 SCC
(Cri) 929], wherein the Apex Court has
observed that criminal courts should ensure
that proceedings before it are not used for
settling scores or to pressurize parties to
settle civil dispute, therefore, the present
petition may be allowed.

12. Learned counsel for opposite
parties have raised strong objection against
the aforesaid affidavit by saying that when
Achchhe Lal Jaiswal, the petitioner has not
authorized Sri Varun Jaiswal to file the
petition before this Court how can Varun
Jaiswal who is son of rival party, namely,
Alok Mitra Jaiswal may swear the affidavit
on behalf of Achchhe Lal Jaiswal. Though,
Achchhe Lal Jaiswal has filed an affidavit
clarifying the position that when the
petition was to be filed before this Court on
06.10.2023, he was running ill, therefore on
his instructions, Varun Jaiswal has sworn
the affidavit on his behalf. However,
learned counsel for the opposite parties
have stated that the direction may be issued
to verify the signatures of Achchhe Lal
made on Vakalatnama and also the
signatures made on subsequent affidavit,
2 All. Alok Mitra Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1191
inasmuch as both the signatures are
apparently different and as per their
information, Achchhe Lal Jaiswal is a
patient of Alzheimer so he could have not
authorized Varun Jaiswal to swear the
affidavit on his behalf.

13. Since I am disposing of this
petition at the admission stage, therefore, I
am not going into those contentions of the
opposite parties. Learned counsel for the
opposite parties have stated that Alok Mitra
Jaiswal and his wife has filed a Regular
Suit against Achchhe Lal Jaiswal, on the
basis of one unregistered Will-deed which
has been prepared on the plain papers. The
aforesaid Will-deed is a forged and
fictitious document, inasmuch as after
lodging the FIR to the effect that
appropriate
investigation
has
been
conducted by the Investigating Officer and
on the basis of material and on the basis of
evidence collected during the investigation,
the chargesheet has been filed against the
petitioners in both the petitions.

14. Learned counsel for the opposite
parties have also stated that at the time of
filing the Regular Suit in the year, 2016, the
copy of the Will-deed has not been filed
before the court concerned but obtained the
order of status-quo, however the photostat
copy of such Will-deed has been filed
before the court concerned on 15.02.2023
as 12-ga 1/1, as has been shown in second
paragraph of the internal page 7 of the
interim order dated 15.02.2023 passed by
Civil Judge (Senior Division), court no. 15,
Sultanpur. Learned counsel for the opposite
parties has also stated that the Division
Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ
Petition No. 3559 of 2023 (Alok Mitra @
Alok Jaiswal and 3 others Vs. State of U.P.
and 3 others) has granted interim protection
to the petitioners to the effect that till filing
of the chargesheet, the petitioners shall not
be arrested. The aforesaid writ petition was
dismissed on 18.08.2023 for want of
prosecution. Thereafter, the petitioners filed
C.M. Application No. 2 of 2023 seeking
recall of the order dated 18.08.2023 and
restoration of the writ petition in its original
number. The aforesaid application was
taken up on 13.09.2023 and this Court
recalled its order dated 18.08.2023 and
restored the writ petition to its original
number, issuing notice to private opposite
party and extended the interim order till the
next date of listing.

15. Learned counsel for the opposite
parties have further stated that after getting
the interim order recalled and writ petition
restored on 13.09.2023, the petitioners filed
the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
bearing no. 9084 of 2023 before this Court
challenging the chargesheet wherein the
counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit
have been called for. Learned counsel for
the opposite parties have further submitted
that in the aforesaid criminal case, the
chargesheet was filed on 09.08.2023,
learned trial court took cognizance and
issued summons on 11.08.2023. The
aforesaid charagesheet and summoning
order
dated
11.08.2023
have
been
challenged by the petitioner in the aforesaid
petition no. 9048 of 2023, therefore, it is
clear that the petitioners were aware that
the chargesheet has already been filed and
cognizance has already been taken on
11.08.2023, therefore, the writ petition
bearing Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 3559
of 2023 has already lost its efficacy but the
petitioners got the aforesaid writ petition
restored and got the interim order extended.
They have further submitted that when the
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed
wherein the order dated 19.09.2023 was
passed, the writ petition before the Division
1192 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Bench was already pending wherein there
was stay order in favour of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the opposite parties
have stated with vehemence that the
aforesaid fact has not been disclosed in the
present petition filed by Alok Mitra Jaiswal
and others.

16. On being confronted, the learned
counsel for the petitioners in Re; Alok
Mitra Jaiswal (supra) as to why the
aforesaid relevant material fact has not
been disclosed before the Court, learned
counsel for the petitioner has casually
stated that due to inadvertence and
bonafide mistake, he could not disclose this
fact before this Court.

17. Having heard, learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on record and having regard the
judgment in Re: Mohammed Ibrahim
(supra), so cited by Sri Jyotindra Mishra,
learned Senior Advocate, I am of the
considered opinion that if the civil disputes
in certain cases have contained ingredients
of criminal offences, such dispute have to
be entertained notwithstanding, they are
also a civil dispute. Para 8 of the judgment
of
Mohammed
Ibrahim
(supra)
is
reproduced herein-below:

"This Court has time and again
drawn attention to the growing tendency of
complainants attempting to give the cloak
of a criminal offence to matters which are
essentially and purely civil in nature,
obviously either to apply pressure on the
accused, or out of enmity towards the
accused, or to subject the accused to
harassment. Criminal courts should ensure
that proceedings before it are not used for
settling scores or to pressurise parties to
settle civil disputes. But at the same, it
should be noted that several disputes of a
civil
nature
may
also
contain
the
ingredients of criminal offences and if so,
will have to be tried as criminal offences,
even if they also amount to civil disputes.
[See: G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P. [2000
(2) SCC 636] and Indian Oil Corporation
vs. NEPCIndia Ltd. [2006 (6) SCC 736].
Let us examine the matter keeping the said
principles in mind."

18. Hon'be Apex Court in the
judgment
rendered
in
Pratibha
v.
Rameshwari Devi, (2007) 12 SCC 369,
has held that:

"it is well settled that criminal
and civil proceedings are separate and
independent and the pendency of a civil
proceeding cannot bring to an end a
criminal proceeding even if they arise out
of the same set of facts."

19. Since in the petition of Alok Mitra
Jaiswal (supra), the fact has not been
disclosed
that
earlier
the
aforesaid
petitioners have filed a writ petition before
this Court and have been granted interim
protection and that the aforesaid writ
petition was dismissed for want of
prosecution, the petitioners got the order
dated 18.08.2023 recalled and the writ
petition was restored to its original number
and got the interim order extended, whereas
by that time the chargesheet had been filed,
cognizance had been taken and summons
had been issued. Not only the above,
challenging the aforesaid chargesheet,
cognizance order and summoning order, the
petitioners filed another petition i.e. instant
petition
before
this
Court
without
disclosing the fact that their one writ
petition before the Division Bench is
pending and interim order has been
extended. Even in Para 1 of the petition,
they have stated that they have not filed
2 All. Alok Mitra Jaiswal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1193
any petition before this Court either at
Allahabad or Lucknow and they further
declared that this is the first petition on
behalf of the petitioners against the cause
of action.

20. The aforesaid conduct of the
petitioners is a deliberate and intentional
concealment of facts. In K.D Sharma Vs.
Steel Authority of India Limited and
others, (2008) 12 SCC 481, Supreme
Court held that no litigant can play "hide
and seek" with the courts or adopt "pick
and choose". To hold a writ of the court one
should come with candid facts and clean
breast. Suppression or concealment of
material facts is forbidden to a litigant or
even as a technique of advocacy.

21. The Apex Court in Dalip Singh
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2010) 2 SCC 114 came down heavily on
unscrupulous litigants by holding that 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.

22. In K. Jayaram and others Vs.
Bangalore Development Authority and
others, (2022) 12 SCC 816, Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under:

"It is necessary for us to state
here that in order to check multiplicity of
proceedings pertaining to the same subjectmatter and more importantly to stop the
menace of soliciting inconsistent orders
through
different
judicial
forums
by
suppressing
material
facts
either
by
remaining silent or by making misleading
statements in the pleadings in order to
escape the liability of making a false
statement, we are of the view that the
parties have to disclose the details of all
legal proceedings and litigations either
past or present concerning any part of the
subject-matter of dispute which is within
their knowledge. In case, according to the
parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings
or court litigations was or is pending, they
have to mandatorily state so in their
pleadings in order to resolve the dispute
between the parties in accordance with law.

In the instant case, since the
appellants have not disclosed the filing of
the suit and its dismissal and also the
dismissal of the appeal against the
judgment of the civil court, the appellants
have to be non-suited on the ground of
suppression of material facts. They have
not come to the court with clean hands and
they have also abused the process of law.
Therefore, they are not entitled for the
extraordinary, equitable and discretionary
relief."

23. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of the case, I do not find any
infirmity or illegality in the impugned
chargesheet,
cognizance
order
and
summoning order, therefore, I hereby
dismiss both the aforesaid petitions.

24. Needless to say that if the
petitioners
of
both
the
petitions
appear/surrender before the learned court
below and file their bail application, the
same may be disposed of with expedition
without
giving
any
unnecessary
adjournment to the prosecution. Further, I
find it appropriate to observe here that
since Sri Achchhelal Jaiswal (supra) is said
to have suffering from various ailments and
he is an old aged person, so his bail
application
may
be
considered
and
disposed of by learned court below with
expedition in the light of the provisions of
Section 437 Cr.P.C.
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

25. It is also needless to say that if the
petitioners of both the petitions file their
discharge application, taking all pleas and
grounds available to them, the said
application shall be decided strictly in
accordance
with
law
by
affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned and that order must be speaking
and reasoned order so that it could be
understood that the learned trial court has
applied its judicious mind.

26. Both the petition under Sections
482 Cr.P.C. are hereby dismissed.

27. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1194
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 9360 of 2009

Mohd. Muslim ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Imran Ullah, Sri Vineet Vikram

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A.

(A) Criminal Law - Approval of gang chart
without
proper
discussion
and
consideration by District Magistrate and
Superintendent of Police - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent power, Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 420, 406,
The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - Section 2/3
- Criminal Law Amendment Act - Section 7,
The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and Anti-Social
Activities (Prevention) Rules, 2021 - Rule No.
5,7,13,16 and 17. (Para - 19,20,21)

(B) The Uttar Pradesh Gangster and AntiSocial Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986 - two
essential ingredients to constitute a gang -
'violence' or 'disturbance of public order' -
indulged in by a group of persons, acting
either singly or collectively, for the purpose of
pecuniary gain etc. - violence or disturbance of
public order alone are not the sine qua non of
a gang as defined under the Act of 1986. (Para
- 7,14)

Applicant and co-accused allegedly acquired land
from a Scheduled Caste person without permission
and intimidated others - Unauthorized land sale -
False claims of land ownership and layout approval -
Failure to provide receipts for payments - Refusal to
refund and threats - DM approved gang chart without
proper discussion or recording reasons - No specific
offenses disturbing public order or committed for
financial gain were mentioned (Rule 13) - Quick
action was taken, violating Gangster Rules, 2021, and
Article 21 of Indian Constitution - process was
mechanical and malicious, depriving applicants of
liberty - Procedural compliance is crucial in Gangster
Act cases to prevent abuse of power.(Para -
3,19,20,21)

HELD: - Authorities should have considered legal
basis and justification when preparing and approving
gang-charts under the 1986 Act. They paid lip service
to the legislative mandate, conducting the process as
a ritualistic formality without due application of mind.
This led to a civil dispute relating to land being
interpreted as criminality, and Section 2/3 of the
Gangster Act being added to the criminal case. The
initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings
were
deemed
persecution
and
harassment,
amounting to abuse of the law and court process.
Entire proceedings quashed against applicant.
(Para -22,23)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. A.K. Dixit Vs St. of U.P., 1987 (34) ACC 164:
1987 ACTR 230: AIR 1987 (All) 235 (All HC, FB)

2. V. Shukla Vs St. of U.P., 2019 (1) ARC 299