# Om Prakash Srivastava v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 497
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-13
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/om-prakash-srivastava-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47845
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Concealment of Material
Facts - An applicant who does not come
with candid facts and "clean breast"
cannot hold a writ of the court with
"soiled
hands".
Suppression
or
concealment of material facts is not an
advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation,
maneuvering or misrepresentation, which
has no place in equitable and prerogative
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose
all the material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads the
court, the court has inherent power in order to
protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its
process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to
proceed further with the examination of the
case on merits. If the court does not reject the
petition on that ground, the court would be
failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant
requires to be dealt with for contempt of court
for abusing the process of the court. (Para 17)

B. Anyone who takes recourse to method
of suppression in a court of law, is, in
actuality, playing fraud with the court,
and the maxim suppressio veri, expression
faisi, i.e., suppression of the truth is
equivalent to the expression of falsehood,
gets attracted. (Para 7)

In the present case, sole argument raised by
the appellant is that the writ petition was filed
by the respondents concealing material facts
regarding number of cases filed by respondent
no. 5-the writ petitioner claiming the same relief
which had travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
Some
of
the
writ
petitions
filed
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subsequently were dismissed by this Court.
(Para 2)

The only detail furnished by respondent no. 5 is
regarding civil suit filed by present appellant in
the year 2008. Only copy of the order passed by
the trial court has been annexed and no any
other order passed in the aforesaid civil suit.
None of the order passed subsequently by the
trial court was annexed. No details were
furnished regarding filing of writ petitions, which
were either decided or pending in this Court.
(Para 3, 4)

The present appeal deserves to be allowed and
the order passed by learned Single Judge
deserves to be set aside on this ground alone
that there was gross concealment of material
facts from the Court. Considering the fact that
material facts have been concealed by the writpetitioners while filing the writ petition, the
present appeal is allowed. The impugned order
passed by learned Single Judge dated June 23,
2020 is set aside. (Para 5, 9)

Special appeal allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

11 All. Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
497
detail and has fond that there are
material contradictions in the deposition
of informant and P. W. 2 and there is no
cogent evidence on record to prove the
charges for offences under Sections
498A, 323, 506, 376 and 406 I. P. C. and
Sections-3/4 of D. P. Act.

21. It is incumbent upon the
prosecution to prove the charges against the
accused-respondent
beyond
reasonable
doubt, which it has miserably failed.

22. We are not in agreement with the
contentions raised on behalf of the Stateappellant that by the impugned judgement
and order trial court has not properly
appreciated the evidence on record or the
impugned judgement and order is perverse
and erroneous in the eyes of law and is not
sustainable.

23. Hence, the trial court has not erred
in law by acquitting the respondents,
therefore, impugned judgement and order is
liable to be upheld and is accordingly
upheld.

24. The leave to appeal is refused;
consequently,
the
instant
government
appeal is dismissed.

25. Record of lower court along with
certified copy of this order be sent to the
court concerned forthwith for necessary
action.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 497
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.09.2022
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 400 of 2020 (O&M)

Om Prakash Srivastava ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ramanand Pandey, (Standing Counsel),
Sri Nitin Chandra Mishra

A. Civil Law - Concealment of Material
Facts - An applicant who does not come
with candid facts and "clean breast"
cannot hold a writ of the court with
"soiled
hands".
Suppression
or
concealment of material facts is not an
advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation,
maneuvering or misrepresentation, which
has no place in equitable and prerogative
jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose
all the material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads the
court, the court has inherent power in order to
protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its
process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to
proceed further with the examination of the
case on merits. If the court does not reject the
petition on that ground, the court would be
failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant
requires to be dealt with for contempt of court
for abusing the process of the court. (Para 17)

B. Anyone who takes recourse to method
of suppression in a court of law, is, in
actuality, playing fraud with the court,
and the maxim suppressio veri, expression
faisi, i.e., suppression of the truth is
equivalent to the expression of falsehood,
gets attracted. (Para 7)

In the present case, sole argument raised by
the appellant is that the writ petition was filed
by the respondents concealing material facts
regarding number of cases filed by respondent
no. 5-the writ petitioner claiming the same relief
which had travelled up to the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
Some
of
the
writ
petitions
filed
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
subsequently were dismissed by this Court.
(Para 2)

The only detail furnished by respondent no. 5 is
regarding civil suit filed by present appellant in
the year 2008. Only copy of the order passed by
the trial court has been annexed and no any
other order passed in the aforesaid civil suit.
None of the order passed subsequently by the
trial court was annexed. No details were
furnished regarding filing of writ petitions, which
were either decided or pending in this Court.
(Para 3, 4)

The present appeal deserves to be allowed and
the order passed by learned Single Judge
deserves to be set aside on this ground alone
that there was gross concealment of material
facts from the Court. Considering the fact that
material facts have been concealed by the writpetitioners while filing the writ petition, the
present appeal is allowed. The impugned order
passed by learned Single Judge dated June 23,
2020 is set aside. (Para 5, 9)

Special appeal allowed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. In abhyudya Sanstha Vs U.O.I., (2011) 6 SCC
145 (Para 6)

2. Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu &
anr., (2013) 9 SCC 199 (Para 7)

3. ABCD Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2020) 2 SCC 52 (Para 8)

Present special appeal assails judgment
and order dated 23.06.2020, passed by
Hon'ble
Mr.
Justice
Mahesh
Chandra
Tripathi, J. in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
10218 of 2020.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Order dated June 23, 2020 passed
by learned Single Judge has been impugned
by filing the present intra-court appeal.

2. Sole argument raised by learned
counsel for the appellant is that the writ
petition was filed by the respondents
concealing material facts regarding number
of cases filed by respondent no. 5-the writ
petitioner claiming the same relief which
had travelled upto the Hon'ble Supreme
Court. Some of the writ petitions filed
subsequently were dismissed by this Court,
the details thereof furnished by learned
counsel for the appellant are as under:-

"I. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
34874 of 2009

II. Special Appeal No. 864 of
2010

III. Special Appeal No. 1956 of
2011

IV. Special Appeal No. 1911 of
2011

V. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
42424 of 2014

VI. Original Suit No. 26 of 2015.

VII. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
47483 of 2014

VIII Special Leave to Appeal
3589 of 2018

IX. Writ-C No. 31196 of 2019

X. Special Appeal (Defective)
No. 1175 of 2020"

3. Learned counsel for the respondent
no. 5 tried to explain the facts stated in the
writ petition. However, the only detail
furnished therein is regarding civil suit
filed by present appellant in the year 2008.
Only copy of the order passed by the trial
court has been annexed and no any other
order passed in the aforesaid civil suit.

4. None of the order passed
subsequently by the trial court was
annexed.
No
details
were
furnished
regarding filing of writ petitions, which
11 All. Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
499
were either decided or pending in this
Court.

5. After hearing the arguments, in our
opinion, the present appeal deserves to be
allowed and the order passed by learned
Single Judge set aside only on the ground
that there was gross concealment of
material facts from the Court when the writ
petition was filed. As to how a litigant who
conceals material facts from the Court, has
to be dealt with, has been gone through by
Hon'ble the Supreme Court time and again
and the consistent opinion is that he is not
entitled even to be heard on merits.

6. In Abhyudya Sanstha Vs. Union
of India (2011) 6 SCC 145, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court, while declining relief to
the petitioners therein, who did not
approach the court with clean hands,
opined as under:

"18. ... In our view, the appellants
deserve to be non suited because they have
not approached the Court with clean hands.
The plea of inadvertent mistake put
forward by the learned senior counsel for
the appellants and their submission that the
Court may take lenient view and order
regularisation of the admissions already
made sounds attractive but does not merit
acceptance.
Each
of
the
appellants
consciously made a statement that it had
been granted recognition by the NCTE,
which necessarily implies that recognition
was granted in terms of Section 14 of the
Act read with Regulations 7 and 8 of the
2007 Regulations. Those managing the
affairs of the appellants do not belong to
the
category
of
innocent,
illiterate/uneducated persons, who are not
conversant with the relevant statutory
provisions and the court process. The very
fact that each of the appellants had
submitted LPASW No. 82/2019 Page 7
application in terms of Regulation 7 and
made itself available for inspection by the
team constituted by WRC, Bhopal shows
that they were fully aware of the fact that
they can get recognition only after fulfilling
the conditions specified in the Act and the
Regulations and that WRC, Bhopal had not
granted
recognition
to
them.
Notwithstanding this, they made bold
statement that they had been granted
recognition by the competent authority and
thereby succeeded in persuading this Court
to entertain the special leave petitions and
pass interim orders. The minimum, which
can be said about the appellants is that they
have not approached the Court with clean
hands and succeeded in polluting the
stream of justice by making patently false
statement. Therefore, they are not entitled
to relief under Article 136 of the
Constitution. This view finds support from
plethora of precedents.

19. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das
AIR 1963 SC 1558, G. Narayanaswamy
Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka (1991) 3
SCC 261 and large number of other cases,
this
Court
denied
relief
to
the
petitioner/appellant on the ground that he
had not approached the Court with clean
hands. In Hari Narain v. Badri Das
(supra), the Court revoked the leave
granted to the appellant and observed:

"It is of utmost importance that in
making material statements and setting
forth grounds in applications for special
leave made under Article 136 of the
Constitution, care must be taken not to
make any statements which are inaccurate,
untrue or misleading. In dealing with
applications for special leave, the Court
naturally takes statements of fact and
grounds of fact contained in the petitions at
their face value and it LPASW No. 82/2019
Page 8 would be unfair to betray the
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
confidence of the Court by making
statements
which
are
untrue
and
misleading. Thus, if at the hearing of the
appeal the Supreme Court is satisfied that
the material statements made by the
appellant in his application for special
leave are inaccurate and misleading, and
the respondent is entitled to contend that
the appellant may have obtained special
leave from the Supreme Court on the
strength of what he characterises as
misrepresentations of facts contained in the
petition for special leave, the Supreme
Court may come to the conclusion that in
such a case special leave granted to the
appellant ought to be revoked."

20.
In
G.
Narayanaswamy
Reddy v. Govt. of Karnataka's case
(supra), the Court while noticing the fact
regarding the stay order passed by the High
Court which prevented passing of the
award by the Land Acquisition Officer
within the prescribed time period was
concealed and in the aforesaid context, it
observed that :

"2. ... Curiously enough, there is
no reference in the special leave petitions to
any of the stay orders and we came to know
about
these
orders
only
when
the
respondents appeared in response to the
notice and filed their counter- affidavit. In
our view, the said interim orders have a
direct bearing on the question raised and
the non-disclosure of the same certainly
amounts to suppression of material facts.
On this ground alone, the special leave
petitions are liable to be rejected. It is well
settled in law that the relief under Article
136 of the Constitution is discretionary and
a petitioner who approaches this Court for
such relief must come with frank and full
disclosure of facts. If he fails to do so and
suppresses material facts, his application is
liable to be dismissed. We accordingly
dismiss the special leave petitions."

21. In Dalip Singh v. State of
U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court noticed the progressive
decline in the values of life and observed:

"1. For many centuries Indian
society cherished two basic values of life
i.e. "satya" (truth) and "ahinsa" (non-
violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and
Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
ingrain these values in their daily life.
Truth constituted an integral part of the
justice- delivery system which was in
vogue in the pre-Independence era and the
people used to feel proud to tell truth in the
courts irrespective of the consequences.
However, post-Independence 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.

2. In the last 40 years, a new
creed of litigants has cropped up. Those
who belong to this creed do not have any
respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to
falsehood
and
unethical
means
for
achieving their goals. In order to meet the
challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time,
evolved new rules and 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."

 (emphasis supplied)

7. In Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem
Prakash @ Pappu and another (2013) 9
SCC 199, Hon'ble the Supreme Court,
considering
the
issue
regarding
concealment of facts before the Court,
while observing that "court is not a
11 All. Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
501
laboratory where children come to play",
opined as under:

"19. The second limb of the
submission is whether in the obtaining
factual matrix, the order passed by the High
Court discharging the accused-respondent
is justified in law. We have clearly stated
that though the respondent was fully aware
about the fact that charges had been framed
against him by the learned trial Judge, yet
he did not bring the same to the notice of
the revisional court hearing the revision
against the order taking cognizance. It is a
clear case of suppression. It was within the
special knowledge of the accused. Any one
who
takes
recourse
to
method
of
suppression in a court of law, is, in
actuality, playing fraud with the court, and
the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi ,
i.e., suppression of the truth is equivalent to
the expression of falsehood, gets attracted.
We are compelled to say so as there has
been a calculated concealment of the fact
before the revisional court. It can be stated
with certitude that the accused- respondent
tried to gain advantage by such factual
suppression. The fraudulent intention is
writ large. In fact, he has shown his
courage of ignorance and tried to play
possum.

20. The High Court, as we have
seen,
applied
the
principle
"when
infrastructure
collapses,
the
superstructure is bound to collapse".
However, as the order has been obtained
by practising fraud and suppressing
material fact before a court of law to gain
advantage, the said order cannot be
allowed to stand."
 (emphasis supplied)

8. In ABCD Vs. Union of India and
others (2020) 2 SCC 52, Hon'ble the
Supreme Court in the matter where
material facts had been concealed, while
issuing notice to the petitioner therein,
exercising its suo-motu contempt power,
observed as under :

"15. Making a false statement on
oath is an offence punishable under Section
181 of the IPC while furnishing false
information with intent to cause public
servant to use his lawful power to the
injury of another person is punishable
under Section 182 of the IPC. These
offences by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i)
of the Code can be taken cognizance of by
any court only upon a proper complaint in
writing as stated in said Section. In respect
of
matters
coming
under
Section
195(1)(b)(i) of the Code, in Pushpadevi
M. Jatia v. M.L. Wadhawan etc., (1987)
3 SCC 367 prosecution was directed to be
launched after prima facie satisfaction was
recorded by this Court.

16. It has also been laid down by
this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil
Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421 that a
person who makes an attempt to deceive
the court, interferes with the administration
of justice and can be held guilty of
contempt of court. In that case a husband
who had filed a fabricated document to
oppose the prayer of his wife seeking
transfer of matrimonial proceedings was
found guilty of contempt of court and
sentenced to two weeks imprisonment. It
was observed as under:

"1. The stream of administration
of justice has to remain unpolluted so that
purity of court's atmosphere may give
vitality to all the organs of the State.
Polluters
of
judicial
firmament
are,
therefore, required to be well taken care of
to maintain the sublimity of court's
environment; so also to enable it to
administer justice
fairly and to the
satisfaction of all concerned.
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. Anyone who takes recourse to
fraud, deflects the course of judicial
proceedings; or if anything is done with
oblique motive, the same interferes with the
administration of justice. Such persons are
required to be properly dealt with, not only
to punish them for the wrong done, but also
to deter others from indulging in similar
acts which shake the faith of people in the
system of administration of justice.

*

*

*

14. The legal position thus is that
if the publication be with intent to deceive
the court or one made with an intention to
defraud, the same would be contempt, as it
would interfere with administration of
justice. It would, in any case, tend to
interfere with the same. This would
definitely be so if a fabricated document is
filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the
case at hand the fabricated document was
apparently to deceive the court; the
intention to defraud is writ large. Anil
Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt."

17. In K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel
Authority of India Limited and others
(2008) 12 SCC 481 it was observed:

"39. If the primary object as
highlighted in Kensington Income Tax
Commrs., (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB
257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) is kept in mind,
an applicant who does not come with
candid facts and "clean breast" cannot
hold a writ of the court with "soiled
hands". Suppression or concealment of
material facts is not an advocacy. It is a
jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or
misrepresentation, which has no place in
equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If
the applicant does not disclose all the
material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads
the court, the court has inherent power in
order to protect itself and to prevent an
abuse of its process to discharge the rule
nisi and refuse to proceed further with the
examination of the case on merits. If the
court does not reject the petition on that
ground, the court would be failing in its
duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to
be dealt with for contempt of court for
abusing the process of the court."

18. In Dhananjay Sharma Vs.
State of Haryana and others (1995) 3
SCC 757 filing of a false affidavit was
the basis for initiation of action in
contempt jurisdiction and the concerned
persons were punished.

9. In view of above exposition of
law and considering the fact that
material facts have been concealed by
the writ-petitioners while filing the writ
petition, the present appeal is allowed.
The impugned order passed by learned
Single dated June 23, 2020 is set aside
subject to cost of ₹ 1,00,000/-, out of
which ₹ 50,000/- shall be paid by
respondent no. 5 to the appellant
whereas ₹ 50,000/- shall be deposited
with the Mediation Centre. Costs shall
be paid and deposited within a period of
one month from today and compliance
report submitted in Registry.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 502
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 26.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Special Appeal No. 1056 of 2018

Chandra Prakash Singh
 ...Appellant/Petitioner
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Kushinagar
& Ors. ...Respondents