# Court in Kanchan Kumar Chowdhary v. District Judge, Mau, 1999 (1) AWC - **Citation:** (2013) 1 ILRA 177 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2013-02-01 - **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1803 of 2013 - **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/court-in-kanchan-kumar-chowdhary-v-district-judge-mau-1999-1-awc-42486 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 439three different bail applications-by same petitioner-three different Counselconcealing earlier bail applications-even the counsel facing embarrassing situation tendered unconditional apology-exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed-with direction to make declaration filing any earlier writ, bail, appeal, revision or 482 applications Held: Para-11 Before parting with the case, the Court requests the members of the Bar to make sure from the litigants and their Pairokars etc. that before filing any writ petition, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., bail application, revision, appeal, etc. before this Court whether any such matters have not been earlier filed by the respective parties before this Court so that such an embarrassing situation may not arise again before the learned counsel and this Court may not be flooded with multiplicity of litigations on behalf of one party for same cause of action and precious time of the Court be wasted which has large number of cases pending for disposal and litigants are waiting for disposal of their cases. It has been noticed by the Court on various occasions while sitting in different jurisdiction that such instances have become the order of the day in spite of various computerized methods adopted by the Registry of this Court to check such instances but sometimes it also escapes from their notice. Thus, the cooperation from the Bar is also required to save the institution from such malpractices. ## Text 1 All] Dinesh Kumar Sahni @ Dinesh Sahni Vs. State of U.P. 177 but it has clearly said that suit for injunction, which does not involve a declaration of title or right etc., but is based on an alleged right of easement, may fall outside the provision of Section 5(2) of the Act, 1953. 24. The decision in Banwarilal (supra) has also been followed by this Court in Kanchan Kumar Chowdhary Vs. District Judge, Mau, 1999 (1) AWC 152. 25. In view of Division Bench judgment in Banwarilal & Others (supra) and the two Single Judge authority of this Court, following aforesaid Division Bench judgment in Kanchan Kumar Chowdhary (supra) and Radha Krishna & others (supra), I am clearly of the view that suit in question is simply a suit for permanent injunction and would not stand abated by Section 5(2) of Act, 1953. 26. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. 27. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1803 of 2013 Dinesh Kumar Sahni @ Dinesh Sahni ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Raj Kumar Sri Kundan Pal Counsel for the Respondents: A.G.A. Code of Criminal Procedure, Section 439three different bail applications-by same petitioner-three different Counselconcealing earlier bail applications-even the counsel facing embarrassing situation tendered unconditional apology-exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000 imposed-with direction to make declaration filing any earlier writ, bail, appeal, revision or 482 applications Held: Para-11 Before parting with the case, the Court requests the members of the Bar to make sure from the litigants and their Pairokars etc. that before filing any writ petition, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., bail application, revision, appeal, etc. before this Court whether any such matters have not been earlier filed by the respective parties before this Court so that such an embarrassing situation may not arise again before the learned counsel and this Court may not be flooded with multiplicity of litigations on behalf of one party for same cause of action and precious time of the Court be wasted which has large number of cases pending for disposal and litigants are waiting for disposal of their cases. It has been noticed by the Court on various occasions while sitting in different jurisdiction that such instances have become the order of the day in spite of various computerized methods adopted by the Registry of this Court to check such instances but sometimes it also escapes from their notice. Thus, the cooperation from the Bar is also required to save the institution from such malpractices. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.) 178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013 1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar and Sri Kundan Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. At the very outset, Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant states that the notice of the present bail application on behalf of the applicant which has been moved in Case Crime No. 124 of 2012 under Section 376 I.P.C., police station Jansa, District Varanasi, was given through him on 5.10.2012 to the Office of Government Advocate U.P. which was numbered as Notice No. 27069 of 2012. The deponent of the said bail application is one Ghasi S/o-Bhaggal, R/o-House No. 36, Village/Mohalla Ghamahapur, Tehsil Sadar, District Varanasi, who is the father of the applicant. Thereafter another bail application was moved on behalf of the same applicant in same case crime number and notice of the said application was given by Sri Kundan Rai, Advocate, who is also present in the Court today to the Office of Government Advocate U.P. on 24.11.2012 which was numbered as Notice No. 32368 of 2012. The deponent of the said bail application is also Ghasi, father of the applicant, who had earlier instructed Sri Raj Kumar to file the bail application on behalf of the applicant. 3. These two bail applications have come up before this Court as fresh as they have been assigned to this Bench and are being heard and disposed of by a common order. 4. In the other bail application which has been filed on behalf of the applicant through Sri Kundan Rai, Advocate, the deponent has not disclosed the fact that he had already approached to this Court and a notice of the bail application on behalf of the applicant has been given through another counsel Sri Raj Kumar to Government Advocate in the same crime number. 5. On being asked about the said fact, learned counsel for the applicant Sri Raj Kumar and Sri Kundan Rai could not give a satisfactory reply. Instead they have tendered apology on behalf of their client for aforesaid misconduct/misinformation thereby misleading this Court and wasting its precious time. 6. Both learned counsel for the applicant in the respective bail application prayed that the present applications may be dismissed on this count alone by imposing exemplary cost which this Court may deem fit so that no further complication may arise in the matter as the Court taking serious note of the matter wanted to get an enquiry done about the genuineness of the affidavit of the deponent Ghasi in two bail applications. 7. In view of the above, the present two bail applications are dismissed for concealing material fact by the deponent that he has already approached this Court and given notice to the Office of Government Advocate of the bail application on behalf of the applicant on 5.10.2012 and did not disclose the said fact to his counsel Sri Kundan Rai and also filed another bail application and gave notice of the same to the Office of Government Advocate on 24.11.2012 which has also been filed in the Court and has also came today before the Court for disposal and has put both the counsel in an embarrassing position before the Court and further misleading the Court by his 1 All] Smt. Prabha Awasthi & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Another 179 deceitful conduct and not approaching the Court with clean hands, with an exemplory cost of Rs. 10,000/- which shall be realized from the deponent within a period of one month from today. The amount if so realized by the deponent shall be transmitted to the concerned District Legal Authority. 8. Office is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the C.J.M. Varanasi for realizing the said amount from the deponent as directed above. If the amount of fine is not deposited in the aforesaid period, the deponent shall be taken into custody and shall be sent to jail to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months from the date of his arrest. 9. Learned counsel for the applicant is at liberty to file second bail application on behalf of the applicant after the aforesaid amount of cost is deposited or the deponent Ghasi is sent to jail and release after serving out the sentence as the case may be. 10. Office is further directed to tag the record of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1744 of 2013, Dinesh Kumar Sahni @ Dinesh Sahni vs. State of U.P. along with the present bail application. 11. Before parting with the case, the Court requests the members of the Bar to make sure from the litigants and their Pairokars etc. that before filing any writ petition, application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., bail application, revision, appeal, etc. before this Court whether any such matters have not been earlier filed by the respective parties before this Court so that such an embarrassing situation may not arise again before the learned counsel and this Court may not be flooded with multiplicity of litigations on behalf of one party for same cause of action and precious time of the Court be wasted which has large number of cases pending for disposal and litigants are waiting for disposal of their cases. It has been noticed by the Court on various occasions while sitting in different jurisdiction that such instances have become the order of the day in spite of various computerized methods adopted by the Registry of this Court to check such instances but sometimes it also escapes from their notice. Thus, the co-operation from the Bar is also required to save the institution from such malpractices. --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2013 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ADITYA NATH MITTAL,J. Criminal Revision No. 1950 of 2010 Smt. Prabha Awasthi & Others ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. & Another ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Surendra Tiwari Sri Dileep Kumar Sri Rajiv Gupta Sri Rajrishi Gupta Sri Ravi Kant Sri Surendra Tripathi Counsel for the Respondents: Sri D.P.Singh Sri Dr. Nisha Richariya Sri Vishnu Gupta A.G.A.