# Faisal Siddiqui @ Mohd. Faisal Revisionist v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 893
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Revision Defective No. 250 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajnish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/faisal-siddiqui-mohd-faisal-revisionist-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54641
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

G.A., Ramakar Shukla

Issue for Consideration
Whether a revision filed with concealment of
material facts and suppression of earlier failed
mediation proceedings can be entertained, and
whether
obtaining
interim
relief
by
misrepresentation amounts to fraud on the
Court, vitiating the proceedings and inviting
exemplary costs.

Headnotes

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - ss.
397/401, 125, 126(2) - Concealment of
material facts - Fraud on Court -
Suppression of earlier failed mediation -
Interim relief obtained by deceit - Delay
in filing revision - Condonation refused -
Exemplary
costs
imposed
-
Ethical
obligation of advocate towards Court.

Held:
The revisionist- suppressed the material fact-
earlier, in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-
relating to the same matrimonial dispute-matter
had been referred to mediation, which had
failed-concealing
this
fact
and
falsely
representing a "possibility of settlement'- interim
protection was obtained fraudulently. [Paras 25]

Suppression of material facts and misleading the
Court amount to fraud- vitiates all judicial actsfraus omnia corrumpit applies - fraud unravels
everything- judgment or order obtained by
playing fraud on the Court is non est in law
and a nullity- every Court, whether superior or
subordinate bound to treat such order as void
[Paras 5-7]

Every litigant approaching the Court-duty of full
and
fair
disclosure
of
material
factsAdvocates, being officers of the Court-equally
obliged to assist the Court fairly and truthfullylegal profession demands the highest standards
of probity, candour and integrity. [Para 8]

Application for condonation of delay dismissed
- Revision dismissed - Cost of ₹1,00,000
imposed; ₹90,000 to be paid to respondent no.
2 and ₹10,000 to be deposited in the Court. (E14)

Case Law Cited
Jeet Narain v. Govind Prasad, 2010 (110) RD
374 - relied on; Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422 - followed; S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v.
Jaganath (Dead) by LRs, (1994) 1 SCC 1 -
followed; Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate
of Enforcement, (2024) 6 SCC 401 - relied
on; Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha,
(2024) 4 SCC 432 - applied.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961; Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Fraud on Court; Suppression of material facts;
Concealment; Interim protection obtained by
deceit; Professional ethics; Duty of disclosure;
Advocates as officers of the Court; Matrimonial
proceedings; Misrepresentation; Nullity of order.
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Arising From
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397/401
Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the Family Court
passed under Sections 125 and 126(2) Cr.P.C.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist : Shri Yogesh Kumar Mishra,
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Yadav
For the Opposite Parties : Learned Government
Advocate, Shri Ramakar Shukla

## Text

7 All. Faisal Siddiqui @ Mohd. Faisal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
893
11. कायागलय को तनिेभशत ककया िाता
है कक इस आिेश की प्रतत सिंबिंधित/ विचारण
न्यायालय को अविलिंब प्रेवर्षत करना सुतनजश्चत
करें।
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 893
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Criminal Revision Defective No. 250 of 2025

Faisal Siddiqui @ Mohd. Faisal
 ...Revisionist
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Yogesh Kumar Mishra, Dharmendra Kumar
Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Ramakar Shukla

Issue for Consideration
Whether a revision filed with concealment of
material facts and suppression of earlier failed
mediation proceedings can be entertained, and
whether
obtaining
interim
relief
by
misrepresentation amounts to fraud on the
Court, vitiating the proceedings and inviting
exemplary costs.

Headnotes

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - ss.
397/401, 125, 126(2) - Concealment of
material facts - Fraud on Court -
Suppression of earlier failed mediation -
Interim relief obtained by deceit - Delay
in filing revision - Condonation refused -
Exemplary
costs
imposed
-
Ethical
obligation of advocate towards Court.

Held:
The revisionist- suppressed the material fact-
earlier, in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.-
relating to the same matrimonial dispute-matter
had been referred to mediation, which had
failed-concealing
this
fact
and
falsely
representing a "possibility of settlement'- interim
protection was obtained fraudulently. [Paras 25]

Suppression of material facts and misleading the
Court amount to fraud- vitiates all judicial actsfraus omnia corrumpit applies - fraud unravels
everything- judgment or order obtained by
playing fraud on the Court is non est in law
and a nullity- every Court, whether superior or
subordinate bound to treat such order as void
[Paras 5-7]

Every litigant approaching the Court-duty of full
and
fair
disclosure
of
material
factsAdvocates, being officers of the Court-equally
obliged to assist the Court fairly and truthfullylegal profession demands the highest standards
of probity, candour and integrity. [Para 8]

Application for condonation of delay dismissed
- Revision dismissed - Cost of ₹1,00,000
imposed; ₹90,000 to be paid to respondent no.
2 and ₹10,000 to be deposited in the Court. (E14)

Case Law Cited
Jeet Narain v. Govind Prasad, 2010 (110) RD
374 - relied on; Neeru Yadav v. State of
U.P., (2016) 15 SCC 422 - followed; S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs v.
Jaganath (Dead) by LRs, (1994) 1 SCC 1 -
followed; Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate
of Enforcement, (2024) 6 SCC 401 - relied
on; Kusha Duruka v. State of Odisha,
(2024) 4 SCC 432 - applied.

List of Acts / Statutes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961; Indian Penal Code, 1860

List of Keywords
Fraud on Court; Suppression of material facts;
Concealment; Interim protection obtained by
deceit; Professional ethics; Duty of disclosure;
Advocates as officers of the Court; Matrimonial
proceedings; Misrepresentation; Nullity of order.
894 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case Arising From
Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397/401
Cr.P.C. challenging the order of the Family Court
passed under Sections 125 and 126(2) Cr.P.C.

Appearance for Parties
For the Revisionist : Shri Yogesh Kumar Mishra,
Shri Dharmendra Kumar Yadav
For the Opposite Parties : Learned Government
Advocate, Shri Ramakar Shukla

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajnish Kumar, J.)

1. In deference to the order dated
26.05.2025, the parties are present in
person.

2. The respondent no.2 states that
she does not want mediation in the matter
because earlier the revisionist had filed
Application
under
Section
482
No.1605/2023(Mohd.Faisal
and
Others
versus
State
of
U.P.
and
Another)
challenging the charge sheet and the
summoning order dated 06.11.2020 passed
in Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime
No.3690/2020, under Section 498-A, 323,
504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur.One of
the contention of learned counsel for the
revisionist in that case was that there is
possibility of compromise between the
parties
being
matrimonial
dispute,
therefore, this Court had referred the matter
for mediation. However, the mediation
failed because the revisionist was not ready
to settle the dispute in the said case and
thereafter the revisionist is also not appearing
in that application before the Court and
enjoying the interim order granted by this
court.

3. Learned counsel for respondent
no.2 submits that without disclosing this fact,
this revision has been filed challenging the
order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as
well as under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on the
application of the revisionist and the only
contention as recorded in the order dated
26.05.2025 is that there is chance of
settlement, therefore, the Court issued notices
and granted interim protection on deposit of
Rs.50,000/- within two weeks, which has
been deposited. Thus, the submission is that
this revision is liable to be dismissed merely
on the ground of concealment playing fraud
with the court for obtaining interim order.
Even otherwise the submission is that nothing
has been paid by the revisionist till date to the
respondent no.2, even after allowing the
interim maintenance by the family court,
whereas the respondent no.2 is residing
separately on account of conduct of the
revisionist since January 2019. It has also
been submitted that in this highly belated
revision, no ground for condonation of delay
could also be shown. Thus the application for
condonation of delay alongwith revision is
liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

4. Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned
counsel for the revisionist could not dispute
the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel
for the respondent no.2. However, he submits
that inadvertently the fact of reference to the
mediation and conciliation centre in the
aforesaid application before this Court could
not be disclosed and pointed out to this Court
and it can not be said that any fraud has been
played. He also could not show any payment
made to the respondent no.2 till date except
the deposit of Rs.20,000/-, out of which
Rs.15,000/- was paid to the respondent no.2
in the aforesaid application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. No.1605/2023 and Rs.50,000/-
in the present case.

5. In view of above, it is apparent
that in this highly belated revision, in
which office has reported a delay of 583
7 All. Faisal Siddiqui @ Mohd. Faisal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
895
days in filing the revision, interim order has
been obtained by the revisionist not only by
material concealment of fact but playing
fraud with the Court also because once the
mediation had failed in a proceeding before
this court, without disclosing the same and
as to why the same has failed and as to how
it is possible now, the only argument
advanced by learned counsel for the
revisionist as recorded in the order dated
26.05.2025 is that there are chances for
settlement. But when the mediation had
already failed before this court in another
proceeding,
the
contention
was
misconceived and not tenable. It shows that
the plea was taken only to obtain interim
order. The counsels for the revisionist
should also have cautious and refrained
from taking such plea, once the mediation
had failed before this court. At this stage
learned counsel for the revisionist submits
that it could not be disclosed as the
revisionist had contacted him for filing
revision against the impugned order and it
was
prepared
as
per
instructions.
However it is his first mistake and he will
be careful in future. He is warned to be
careful in future.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Jeet Narain and another
Versus Govind Prasad and others; 2010
(110) RD 374, has held that it is now well
settled that fraud unravels everything.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu
(Dead) by LRs Versus Joganath (Dead)
by LRs and others; (1994) 1 SCC
1,reproducing the observations of Chief
Justice Edward Coke of England about
three centuries ago that fraud avoids all
judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal held
that it is the settled proposition of law that a
judgment or decree obtained by playing
fraud on the court is a nullity and non-est in
the eyes of law. The relevant paragraph 1 is
extracted here-in-below:-

"1. Fraud avoids all judicial acts,
ecclesiastical or temporal" observed Chief
Justice Edward Coke of England about
three centuries ago. It is the settled
proposition of law that a judgment or
decree obtained by playing fraud on the
court is a nullity and non est in the eyes of
law. Such a judgment/decree by the first
court or by the highest court has to be
treated as a nullity by every court, whether
superior or inferior. It can be challenged in
any court even in collateral proceedings." "

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Saumya Chaurasia Versus
Directorate of Enforcement; (2024) 6
SCC 401, has held that it is an obligation
on party to make full and correct disclosure
of material facts and of advocate to fairly
assist the court in carrying out its function
and
finding
material
concealment
dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs.1
lakh. The relevant paragraph 13 is extracted
here-in-below:-

"13.It cannot be gainsaid that
every party approaching the court seeking
justice is expected to make full and correct
disclosure of material facts and that every
advocate being an officer of the court,
though appearing for a particular party, is
expected to assist the court fairly in
carrying out its function to administer the
justice. It hardly needs to be emphasised
that
a
very
high
standard
of
professionalism and legal acumen is
expected from the advocates particularly
designated senior advocates appearing in
the highest court of the country so that
their professionalism may be followed and
emulated by the advocates practising in the
896 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
High Courts and the District Courts.
Though it is true that the advocates would
settle the pleadings and argue in the courts
on instructions given by their clients,
however their duty to diligently verify the
facts from the record of the case, using
their legal acumen for which they are
engaged, cannot be obliviated."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
the case of Kusha Duruka Versus State of
Odisha; (2024) 4 SCC 432, referring
various judgments observed that one of
the two cherished basic values by Indian
society for centuries is "satya"(truth) and
the same has been put under the carpet by
the petitioner. It has further been held that
now it is well settled 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. Suppression of
material facts from the court of law, is
actually playing fraud with the court. The
relevant paragraph 6 is extracted here-inbelow:-

"6.It was held in the judgments
referred to above that one of the two
cherished basic values by Indian society for
centuries is ?satya? (truth) and the same has
been put under the carpet by the petitioner.
Truth constituted an integral part of the
justice-delivery
system
in
the
preIndependence
era,
however,
postIndependence period has seen drastic
changes in our value system. The
materialism has overshadowed the old
ethos and the quest for personal gain
has become so intense that those
involved in litigation do not hesitate to
take
shelter
of
falsehood,
misrepresentation and suppression of
facts in the court proceedings. In the
last 40 years, the values have gone
down and now litigants can go to any
extent to mislead the court. They have
no respect for the truth. The principle
has been evolved to meet the challenges
posed by this new breed of litigants.
Now it is well settled 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.
Suppression of material facts from the
court of law, is actually playing fraud
with the court. The maxim suppressio
veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of
the truth is equivalent to the expression
of falsehood, gets attracted. It is
nothing but degradation of moral values
in the society, may be because of our
education system. Now we are more
happy to hear anything except truth;
read
anything
except
truth;
speak
anything
except
truth
and
believe
anything except truth. Someone rightly
said that: "Lies are very sweet, while
truth is bitter, that's why most people
prefer telling lies."

10. In view of above, this
revision
alongwith
application
for
condonation of delay is liable to be
dismissed with heavy cost as no
sufficient ground for condonation of
delay could also be shown.

11.
The
application
for
condonation of delay is dismissed.
Consequently
the
revision
is
dismissed with a cost of Rs.1 lakh,
which shall be deposited by the
revisionist before Senior Registrar of
this Court within a period of three
weeks from today, failing which the
same shall be recovered from the
revisionist as arrears of land revenue
by
him
forthwith.
7 All. Kamleshwar Shahi Vs. Dr. Ajay Shankar & Ors.
897
12. It is further provided that
Rs.50,000/-
deposited
before
the
mediation and conciliation centre of
this Court shall be released and paid
to
the
respondent
no.2
on
an
application moved by her giving the
details of her account, which shall be
transferred in her account through
RTGS after verification. The said
amount shall be adjusted towards the
amount of maintenance fixed by the
Family Court.

13.It is further provided that
out
of
the
aforesaid
cost
of
Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.90,000/- shall also
be paid to the respondent no.2, which
shall be transferred in her account by
the aforesaid mode on her application.
14. The aforesaid amounts shall
be transferred within two weeks of
moving application.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 897
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3939 of 2021

Kamleshwar Shahi ...Petitioner
Versus
Dr. Ajay Shankar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri

Counsel for the Respondents:
Anshu Chaudhary

Issue for Consideration
Whether under Order XXII Rule 4(4) of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
court may exempt the plaintiff from
substituting the legal representatives of a
deceased defendant who did not contest
the suit, even if the application seeking
such exemption is filed after the expiry of
the prescribed period of ninety days.

Headnotes
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - O.22
r.4(4)
-
Substitution
of
legal
representatives
-
Non-contesting
defendant - Exemption from substitution
- Power of court - Limitation of ninety
days - Applicability - Abatement -
Legislative intent - Interpretation of
"whenever the court thinks fit"

HELD:
Sub-rule (4) of Rule 4 of Order XXII C.P.C.-
enacted
to
remedy
procedural
delays
in
substitution-empowering
courts
to
exempt
plaintiffs from substituting legal representatives
of defendants who neither filed a written
statement nor contested the suit-legislative
object
is
to
prevent
abatement
-avoid
unnecessary delay in disposal of cases. [Paras
6-7]

Words "whenever the court thinks fit" in subrule (4)-confer a discretionary power not
limited by the period prescribed for substitutionprovision
does
not
require-application
for
exemption be filed within ninety days from the
death of the defendant-to hold otherwise would
defeat the legislative intent and render the
remedial nature of the amendment nugatory.
[Paras 11, 13-15]

Plaintiff
had
already
filed
a
substitution
application within the prescribed period-there
was
no
abatement
of
appeal-subsequent
application seeking exemption under Order XXII
Rule 4(4) C.P.C. was rightly maintainable-
appellate court's rejection of the exemption
application
was
erroneous-ignored
the
legislative intent of sub-rule (4) - procedural
safeguard meant to expedite justice-Order of
appellate
court
set
aside
-
Exemption
application allowed - Petition allowed. [Paras
12, 16, 17, and 18] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Rameshwar Prasad v. State of U.P., AIR
1983 SC 383 - applied; Sankri Prasad
Singhdeo v. Kanailal Rao, (1948) 52 Cal