# Dhooram Chaudhary v. Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 3 ILRA 1493
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-12-11
- **Case number:** Matter Under Article 227 No. 6852 of 2015
- **Bench:** Suneet Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhooram-chaudhary-v-mr-mulayam-singh-yadav-ors-43359
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Art.-227-Petition
against interlocutory order-granting stay
against summoning of O.P. No. 1-firstly
the application on behalf of stranger-not
maintainable -the applicant disclosed his
credence
as
"Public
Spirited
Social
Worker" but concealed the fact of M.L.A.
Belonging
to
opposition-having
no
concern with suo moto action-except to
file complaint-petition is nothing but to
get cheap popularity-petition dismissed
with cost of Rs. 1 Lacs.
Held: Para-8
The applicant has no concern with the
proceedings initiated, suo moto, by the
court below, neither is the applicant a
complainant, therefore, what motivated
the applicant to approach this court
assailing the impugned order passed by
the
revisional
court
has
not
been
explained.
Case Law discussed:
(2010) 4 SCC 728; (2012) 6 SCC 430; (2010) 2
SCC 114; (2012) 12 SCC 133

## Text

3 All.
 Dhooram Chaudhary Vs. Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav & Ors.
1493
within a period of two months from the date
of production of a certified copy of this
order. Consequences shall follow as per law.
7. However, the question of arrears
and salary etc. shall depend upon the fresh
decision which is to be taken as aforesaid
and shall not be paid till the such decision
though the petitioner shall be allowed to
join and discharge the duties as aforesaid
and shall be paid the current salary.
8. The petitioner shall submit a copy
of the judgment of the Court of criminal
jurisdiction convicting him as also the
appeal
filed
by
him
before
the
Disciplinary Authority, to facilitate the
decision as aforesaid.
9. The writ petition is allowed in the
aforesaid terms.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUNEET KUMAR, J.
Matter Under Article 227 No. 6852 of
2015
Dhooram Chaudhary
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Aseem Kumar Rai
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Constitution of India-Art.-227-Petition
against interlocutory order-granting stay
against summoning of O.P. No. 1-firstly
the application on behalf of stranger-not
maintainable -the applicant disclosed his
credence
as
"Public
Spirited
Social
Worker" but concealed the fact of M.L.A.
Belonging
to
opposition-having
no
concern with suo moto action-except to
file complaint-petition is nothing but to
get cheap popularity-petition dismissed
with cost of Rs. 1 Lacs.
Held: Para-8
The applicant has no concern with the
proceedings initiated, suo moto, by the
court below, neither is the applicant a
complainant, therefore, what motivated
the applicant to approach this court
assailing the impugned order passed by
the
revisional
court
has
not
been
explained.
Case Law discussed:
(2010) 4 SCC 728; (2012) 6 SCC 430; (2010) 2
SCC 114; (2012) 12 SCC 133
(Delivered by Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.)
1. The applicant has approached this
Court in a petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution, inter alia, seeking a
direction to set aside the order dated 22
August 2015 passed by the second
respondent, Sessions Judge, Mahoba in
Criminal Revision being Revision No.
46/15; a further direction has been sought
directing the "appropriate authorities to
take appropriate action against the first
respondent".
2. The applicant claims to be a "public
spirited social worker". The first respondent
is President of the ruling party of the State, a
Member of the Parliament, former Chief
Minister of the State and Former Defence
Minister of India. The Judicial Magistrate at
Kulpahar, District Mahoba had suo moto
taken cognizance of certain comments,
purportedly, made by the first respondent
against the modesty of women thus,
summoning the first respondent under
1494
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sections 504, 505, 509, 116 IPC read with
Section 3 and 4 of the Indian Representation
of Women Prohibition Act 1996 by order
dated 21 August 2015, aggrieved, the first
respondent preferred a revision under Section
397 CrPC against the summoning order. The
learned Revisional Court/Sessions Judge,
Mahoba vide order dated 22 August 2015
stayed the order summoning the first
respondent. The order is being assailed in the
present petition.
3. The applicant claims to be a public
spirited social worker, however, the learned
Advocate General would inform that the
applicant is a former Member of Legislative
Assembly
(MLA)
belonging
to
the
opposition party, the petition at this behest
under Article 227 of the Constitution would
not be maintainable, rather, the petition is a
gross misuse of the process of Court, the
Criminal Revision against the summoning
order is pending, therefore, there was no
occasion for a stranger to have approached
this Court.
4.
Learned counsel for the applicant
when confronted with the credentials of the
applicant i.e. being a former MLA belonging
to a rival political party, the learned counsel
for the applicant would submit that he would
like to withdraw the petition.
5. The learned Advocate General
would submit that the petition being gross
misuse of the process of the Court should
be dismissed with heavy cost.
6. The record would reveal that the
learned Judicial Magistrate had taken suo
moto cognizance under Section 190(1)
Cr.P.C of the offence mentioned herein
above, thereafter, it appears that a
miscellaneous case was also instituted
against the first respondent and one
Bhagirath Yadav for threatening the
landlord
of
the
Magistrate.
The
cognizance was taken on some news
items published in the daily "Hindustan
Times" and "Kanpur Metro" published
from Lucknow and Kanpur respectively,
it was alleged that derogatory remarks
uttered by the first respondent was also
carried by certain news channels of the
electronic media.
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains
that the first respondent has already
committed himself to the judicial process and
has submitted himself before the revisional
Court assailing the cognizance order and the
consequent summoning order, in these
circumstances it appears that the present
proceedings before this Court has been
initiated in the most casual and irresponsible
manner. A number of paragraphs of the
petition, viz para 14 would reflect that
initially a public interest litigation petition
was sought to be filed but it appears on legal
advise, the petition was converted into a
petition under Article 227, however, it
appears the pleadings were accordingly, not
amended nor corrected.
8. The applicant has no concern with
the proceedings initiated, suo moto, by the
court below, neither is the applicant a
complainant, therefore, what motivated the
applicant to approach this court assailing the
impugned order passed by the revisional
court has not been explained.
9. The learned counsel for the
applicant would not dispute that under
criminal jurisprudence, it was open for the
applicant to file a complaint, against the
first respondent if he so desired, before
the concerned Police Station, but instead
of adopting recourse as available under
law, the applicant appears to have
3 All.
 Dhooram Chaudhary Vs. Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav & Ors.
1495
ventured in approaching this Court for
publicity. It is not being disputed that the
applicant is a former MLA and presently
associated with a political party which is
in opposition to the party to which the
first respondent is the President.
10. In these circumstances, the
objection raised by the learned Advocate
General that the petition is a gross misuse
of the process of the Court cannot be
brushed aside lightly.
11.
Another feature of the petition is
that the learned Sessions Judge has been
impleaded in personal capacity, but the
pleadings would reflect that no allegation has
been made against the second respondent.
The second relief is for a direction to the
"appropriate authorities" for taking action
against the first respondent, but the
authorities have neither been arrayed as
parties nor described in the petition.
12. Supreme Court in of Oswal Fats
and
Oils
Limited
vs.
Additional
Commissioner (Administrative), Bareilly
Division1 observed as follows:-
"20. It is settled law that a person
who approaches the court for grant of
relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a
solemn obligation to candidly disclose all
the material/important facts which have
bearing on the adjudication of the issues
raised in the case. In other words, he
owes a duty to the court to bring out all
the
facts
and
refrain
from
concealing/suppressing any material fact
within his knowledge or which he could
have known by exercising diligence
expected of a person of ordinary
prudence. If he is found guilty of
concealment of material facts or making
an attempt to pollute the pure stream of
justice, the court not only has the right
but a duty to deny relief to such person."
13. The observations in A. Shanmugam
v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu
Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam2
are also apposite holding:-
43.2. Every litigant is expected to
state truth before the law court whether it
is pleadings, affidavits or evidence.
Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants
have no place in law courts.
43.3. The ultimate object of the
judicial proceedings is to discern the truth
and do justice. It is imperative that
pleadings and all other presentations
before the court should be truthful.
43.4.
Once
the
court
discovers
falsehood,
concealment,
distortion,
obstruction or confusion in pleadings and
documents, the court should in addition to
full restitution impose appropriate costs. The
court must ensure that there is no incentive
for wrongdoer in the temple of justice. Truth
is the foundation of justice and it has to be
the common endeavour of all to uphold the
truth and no one should be permitted to
pollute the stream of justice.
43.5. It is the bounden obligation of
the court to neutralise any unjust and/or
undeserved benefit or advantage obtained
by abusing the judicial process."
14. In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. &
Ors.3, Supreme Court noticed an altogether
new creed of dishonest litigants, who have
flooded the Court. The quest for personal gain
has become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to seek shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression
of facts in the course of court proceedings.
15. Supreme Court in the case of V.
Chandrashekaran
and
another
vs.
1496
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Administrative
Officer
and
others4
observed that a petition or affidavit
containing
misleading
or
inaccurate
statement amounts to abuse of process of
Court, a litigant cannot take inconsistent
positions. Paras 45, is extracted:-
"45. The judicial process cannot
become an instrument of oppression or
abuse, or a means in the process of the court
to subvert justice, for the reason that the
court exercises its jurisdiction, only in
furtherance of justice. The interests of justice
and public interest coalesce, and therefore,
they are very often one and the same. A
petition or an affidavit containing a
misleading and/or an inaccurate statement,
only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts
to an abuse of process of the court.
16. In this view of the matter, the
petition is dismissed with heavy cost of
Rs. 1,00,000/-.
17. The applicant shall deposit the cost
with the District Magistrate, Mahoba within
one month, failing which, it will be open for
the District Magistrate, Mahoba to recover
the sum as arrears of land revenue. 50
percent of the sum to be deposited with the
Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad to
be utilized by the Mediation and Conciliation
Center of the High Court, Allahabad and the
remaining 50 percent to be used by
Mediation and Conciliation Center of the
District Mahoba.
18. Registrar General of this Court
shall forward a copy of this order to the
District
Magistrate,
Mahoba
for
compliance.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.12.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR
ARORA, J.
Service Single No. 8006 of 2010
Ashok [objection filed]
...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.A. Khan
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., R.D. Shahi
U.P.
Regularization
of
Daily
wages
appointment on group 'D' Rules, Rule-4(i)-
petitioner working as Mali since 1989seeking
regularization-as
juniors
to
petitioner
have
already
regularized-in
Janardan Yadav case-Rule 4(i) interpreted
as person seeking regularization must be
in service on commencement of the Actbeing appointed prior to 29.06.1991-no
where
continuous
working
requiredpetition disposed of with direction to
consider regularization within 3 months.
Held: Para-5
It is also relevant to mention that this
Court in the case of Janardan yadav
vs.State of U.P. [(2008) 1 UPLBEC 498,
held that this Court does not find any
ambiguity in Rule 4(1) providing as to
which kind of persons would be entitled
for
regularization
and
it
nowhere
requires that the incumbent must have
worked throughout from the date of
initial
engagement
till
the
date
of
commencement of the Rules. In the
situation, the stand of the State is
contrary to the Rules and it amounts to
adding and reading certain words in Rule
4(1) which have not been inserted by the
legislature. As the rules are applicable
only to daily wage employees, the Rules
framing authority was well aware that
such employee could not have worked
continuously throughout and therefore,
has
clearly
provided
that
the