# Ravendra Shukla & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 494
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-29
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 6477 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Lavania
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravendra-shukla-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52218
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 504 &
406 - Application U/s 482 - for quashing
the impugned chargesheet & cognizance
order as well as entire criminal proceedings
filed against the applicants - court finds
that,
earlier,
in
year
2022,
both
the
applicants filed an Application u/section 482
Cr.P.C in which they have challenged the
same impugned orders arising out of same
criminal proceedings which are assailed in
the instant application - held, in view of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in
'Bhisham Lal Verma' case second Application
on the same grounds is not maintainable -
hence, indulgence in the matter is required -
accordingly, present Application is rejected.
(Para - 5, 15, 16, 17)

Application u/s 482 Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 494
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 6477 of 2024

Ravendra Shukla & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Arvind Kumar Pathak

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., M.E. Khan, Shashi Kant Mishra

Criminal
Law
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal
Code, 1860 - Sections 419, 420, 504 &
406 - Application U/s 482 - for quashing
the impugned chargesheet & cognizance
order as well as entire criminal proceedings
filed against the applicants - court finds
that,
earlier,
in
year
2022,
both
the
applicants filed an Application u/section 482
Cr.P.C in which they have challenged the
same impugned orders arising out of same
criminal proceedings which are assailed in
the instant application - held, in view of law
laid down by the Hon'ble Apex court in
'Bhisham Lal Verma' case second Application
on the same grounds is not maintainable -
hence, indulgence in the matter is required -
accordingly, present Application is rejected.
(Para - 5, 15, 16, 17)

Application u/s 482 Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Satendra Kumar Antil Vs, CBI & anr. (SLP to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021,

2. Oswal Fats & oils Ltd. Vs Additional
Commissioner
(Admin.)
Bareilly
Division,
Bareilly & ors.(2010 4 SCC 728),

3. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of UP & ors.(2013 2
SCC 398),

4. Bhisham Lal Verma Vs St. of U P & anr.(2023
SCC online SC 1399).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania, J.)

1. Heard Shri Gurudutt Pandey,
learned counsel for the applicants, learned
A.G.A. for the State as well as Shri Shashi
Kant Mishra, learned counsel appearing for
opposite party No.2 and perused the record.

2. The applicants, namely, Ravendra
Shukla
and
Kumari
Mamta,
have
approached this Court seeking following
main reliefs:-

"(a) To allow the petition and
quash the impugned Charge sheet No. 221
of 2021 dated 09-06-2021 in Case Crime
no. 0037/2021 under Section 419, 420, 504
and 506 I.P.C, Police Station Cantt,
District Ayodhya along with Cognizance
Order dated 03-02-2022 passed by the
learned ACJM-I, Faizabad bearing Case
No. 258 of 2022, annexed here with as
Annexure Nos. 9 and 10 respectively and
set aside the Revision Order.

(b)
To
quash
the
entire
proceeding of Criminal Case No. 258 of
2022: State of U.P. vs Mamta and others
arises out of Crime No. 0037/2021 under
Section 419. 420, 504, and 506 1.P.C.
registered
at
Police
Station
Cantt,
Ayodhya.
7 All. Ravendra Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
495

(c) To stay the operation and
implementation of the proceeding pending
before the learned Trial Court A.C.J.M-I of
District, Ayodhya, registered as Case No:
258 of 2022: State of U.P. vs Mamta and
others, during the pendency and final
disposal of the instant petition."

3. From the material available on
record, it is apparent that applicants
approached this Court by means of
Application U/s 482 No.5705 of 2022
"Mamta and Another Vs. State of U.P.
and Another" challenging the charge sheet
No.221 of 2021 dated 09.06.2021 in Case
Crime No.037 of 2021 under Sections 419,
420, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station-
Cantt, District- Ayodhya and also the
summoning order dated 03.02.2022 passed
by ACJM-I, Faizabad now Ayodhya
bearing Case No.258 of 2022.

4. The above indicated Application
U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5705 of 2022 was
disposed of on 26.08.2022. The order dated
26.08.2022 reads as under:-

"1. Present petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking
quashing of the proceedings of Chargesheet No.221 of 2021 dated 09.06.2021 in
Case Crime No.037 of 2021 under Sections
419, 420, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station
Cantt,
District
Ayodhya
along
with
summoning order dated 03.2.2022 passed
by learned ACJM-I, Faizabad bearing
Case No.258 of 2022.

2. Learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners want
to surrender and apply for regular bail.
Only prayer is that while considering the
bail application of the petitioners, trial
Court should take into consideration order
dated 07.10.2021 read with judgment dated
11.07.2022 of the Supreme Court rendered
in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs
Central Bureau of Investigation & Ors:
SLP(Crl) No.5191 of 2021.

3. Considering the aforesaid
submission, present petition is disposed of
with liberty to the petitioners to surrender
before the trial Court within a period of 15
days and apply for regular bail. Trial
Court is directed to consider the bail
application of the petitioners in accordance
with law and also take into account the
order of the Supreme Court in the case of
Satender Kumar Antil (supra)."

5. It appears from the above quoted
order that the charge sheet No.221 of 2021
dated 09.06.2021 in Case Crime No.037 of
2021 under Sections 419, 420, 504 and 506
I.P.C., Police Station- Cantt, District-
Ayodhya, which has also been challenged
in the instant case, was assailed and
summoning order was also assailed and
thus, it is apparent that entire proceedings
of Criminal Case No.258 of 2022 "State vs.
Mamta and another" arising out of Case
Crime No.037 of 2021 was challenged and
the counsel for the applicants did not press
the prayers sought in the earlier petition
and prayed for seeking benefit of judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation and another
(Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5191 of
2021 and considering the said prayer, this
Court disposed of the Application U/s 482
Cr.P.C. No.5705 of 2022 with liberty to the
applicants to surrender before the trial
Court within a period of 15 days and apply
for regular bail.

6. After the aforesaid, the applicants
did not appear before the Court concerned
seeking benefit of the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court passed in the case of Satendra
Kumar Antil (supra) in terms of the order
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of this Court dated 26.08.2022 passed in
the Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5705
of 2022 and challenged the summoning
order dated 03.02.2022, which was in issue
in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5705
of 2022, before the Sessions Judge,
Ayodhya (in short Revisional Court) by
preferring the Criminal Revision No.101 of
2024 (Ravendra Shukla Vs. State and
Another).

7. The Revisional Court upon due
consideration of the facts of the case
rejected the Revision vide order dated
15.05.2024, the relevant portion of which is
extracted herein under:-

".........5.
मैंने
उभयपक्ष
के
विद्िान अचििक्र्ार्ण की बहस को
विथर्ारपूिाक सुना र्िा विद्िान अिर
न्द्यायालय द्िारा पाररर् आलोच्य आदेश का
पररशीलन ककया।

6.
िारा
397
दिं०प्र०सिं०
के
अन्द्र्र्ार् पुनरीक्षण के थर्र पर पुनरीक्षण
न्द्यायालय को केिल प्रचनर्र् आदेश की
शुद्िर्ा, िैिर्ा ि औचित्क्यर्ा देखना होर्ा है
और पुनरीक्षण न्द्यायालय का क्षेत्राचिकार
बहुर् सीसमर् होर्ा है और ननयसमर् रूप से
प्रयोर् नहीिं ककया िा सकर्ा है।

7. प्रथर्ुर् मामले में विद्िान अिर
न्द्यायालय द्िारा मुकदमा अपराि सिंख्या
37/2021, अन्द्र्र्ार् िारा 419, 420, 504, 506
भा०दिं०सिं०,
िाना
कैण्ट,
िनपद
िैिाबाद/अयोध्या के प्रकरण में िारा 173
दिं०प्र०सिं० के अन्द्र्र्ार् असभयुक्र्र्ण के
विरूद्ि आरोपपत्र प्राप्र् होने पर आलोच्य
आदेश ददनािंककर् 03.02.2022 के द्िारा
अपराि का प्रसिंज्ञान सलया र्या।

8. दण्ड प्रकक्रया सिंदहर्ा की िारा
190 में मस्िथरेटों द्िारा अपराि का सिंज्ञान
सलया िाना प्रावििाननर् है, िो ननम्निर्् है-

190. मस्िथरेटों द्िारा अपरािों का
सिंज्ञान- (1) इस अध्याय के उपबन्द्िों के
अिीन रहर्े हुये, कोई प्रिम िर्ा मस्िथरेट
और उपिारा (2) के अिीन विशेषर्या
सशक्र् ककया र्या कोई द्विर्ीय िर्ा
मस्िथरेट, ककसी भी अपराि का सिंज्ञान
ननम्नसलखखर् दशाओिं में कर सकर्ा है-

(क) उन र्थ्यों का, स्िनसे ऐसा
अपराि बनर्ा है, पररिाद प्राप्र् होने पर,

(ख) ऐसे र्थ्यों के बारे में पुसलस
ररपोटा पर,

(र्) पुसलस अचिकारी से सभन्द्न
ककसी व्यस्क्र् से प्राप्र् इस इवत्तला पर या
थियिं अपनी इस िानकारी पर कक ऐसा
अपराि ककया र्या है।

(2)
मुख्य
न्द्यानयक
मस्िथरेट
ककसी द्विर्ीय िर्ा मस्िथरेट को ऐसे
अपरािों का, स्िनकी िािंि या वििारण
करना उसकी क्षमर्ा के अन्द्दर है, उपिारा
(1) के अिीन सिंज्ञान करने के सलये सशक्र्
कर सकर्ा है।

9. प्रथर्ुर् मामले में विद्िान अिर
न्द्यायालय द्िारा उपरोक्र् विकल्प (ख) के
आिार पर प्रेवषर् पुसलस ररपोटा पर अपराि
का प्रसिंज्ञान सलया र्या है। प्रिम सूिना
ररपोटा में यह र्थ्य उस्ल्लखखर् है कक
7 All. Ravendra Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
497
असभयुक्र्र्ण नसमर्ा शमाा, ममर्ा एििं
रविन्द्र शुक्ला ने सिंयुक्र् रूप से आपराचिक
षड्यन्द्त्र करर्े हुये िोखािडी कर पट्टा
अनुबन्द्ि विलेख ददनािंक 09.12.2020 र्ैयार
कर अनुचिर् लाभ प्राप्र् करने के उद्देचय
से िादी की कचिर् भूसम पर अिैि कब्िा
करने का प्रयास ककया र्या एििं िादी को
र्ासलयािं ि िानमाल की िमकी दी र्यी।
असभयुक्र्ा नसमर्ा शमाा द्िारा अपने पक्ष
में कचिर् पिंिीकृर् पट्टा विलेख र्हरीर
कराने एििं सह असभयुक्र्र्ण ममर्ा एििं
रविन्द्र शुक्ला को हााँससया र्िाह होना
उस्ल्लखखर् ककया र्या है। वििेिक द्िारा
दौरान वििेिना साक्षीर्ण / असभयुक्र्र्ण
का
बयान
अिंककर्
ककया
र्या
एििं
सम्बस्न्द्िर् असभलेखों को प्राप्र् कर केस
डायरी के साि सिंलग्न ककया र्या। वििेिक
द्िारा वििेिना सम्बन्द्िी औपिाररकर्ाओिं
को पूणा करने के पचिार्् सिंकसलर् साक्ष्य
के आिार पर वििेिनोपरान्द्र् असभयुक्र्र्ण
के विरूद्ि आरोपपत्र न्द्यायालय प्रेवषर्
ककया र्या। र्त्क्पचिार्् विद्िान अिर
न्द्यायालय द्िारा न्द्यानयक मस्थर्ष्क का
प्रयोर् करर्े हुये प्रसिंज्ञान सलये िाने का
पयााप्र् आिार पार्े हुये अपराि का
प्रसिंज्ञान सलया र्या। विचि ननणाय Sunil
Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, AIR 2015 SC 923, Supreme
Court", के मामले में माननीय उच्िर्म
न्द्यायालय ने यह ससद्िान्द्र् प्रनर्पाददर्
ककया है कक-

"47.
However,
the
words
"sufficient
grounds
for
proceeding"
appearing in the Section are of immense
importance. It is these words which amply
suggest that an opinion is to be formed only
after due application of mind that there is
sufficient basis for proceeding against the
said accused and formation of such an
opinion is to be stated in the order itself.."

10. विचि ननणाय "U.P. Pollution
Control Board Vs. Dr. Bhupendra Kumar
Modi and others, 2009 (1) Crimes 216" के
मामले में माननीय उच्िर्म न्द्यायालय ने
यह ससद्िान्द्र् प्रनर्पाददर् ककया है कक-

"It is settled legal position that at
the stage of issuing process, the Magistrate
is mainly concerned with the allegations
made in the complaint or the evidence led
in support of the same and he is only to be
prima facie satisfied whether there are
sufficient grounds for proceedings against
the accused."

11. विचि ननणाय "Sonu Gupta Vs.
Deepak Gupta, (2015) 3 SCC 424," के
मामले में माननीय उच्िर्म न्द्यायालय ने
यह ससद्िान्द्र् प्रनर्पाददर् ककया है कक-

"At the stage of cognizance and
summoning the Magistrate is required to
apply his judicial mind only with a view to
take cognizance of the offence, or, in other
words, to find out whether prima facie case
has been made out for summoning the
accused persons. At this stage, the learned
Magistrate is not required to consider the
defence version or materials or arguments
nor he is required to evaluate the merits of
the
materials
or
evidence
of
the
complainant, because the Magistrate must
not undertake the exercise to find out at
this stage whether the materials will lead to
conviction or not."
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. विपक्षीर्ण की र्रि से
प्रथर्ुर् विचि ननणाय "Prabhakar Panday
Vs. State of U.P. and others, Criminal
Revision. No 2341 of 2001, Allahabad
High," के मामले में माननीय उच्ि
न्द्यायालय ने यह ससद्िान्द्र् प्रनर्पाददर्
ककया है कक-

"On exercising the revisional
power, learned Sessions Court cannot
quash the cognizance and summoning
order passed by the Magistrate, in
exercising its revisional power, jurisdiction
of Sessions Court is very limited and the
Sessions Court can only examine the
illegality, irregularity and impropriety of
the order passed by the Magistrate."

13. पुनरीक्षणकर्ाा की र्रि से
प्रथर्ुर् विचि ननणाय सत्क्यपाल बनाम थटेट
ऑि यू०पी० एििं अन्द्य उपरोक्र् में मामले
में उस्ल्लखखर् र्थ्य प्रथर्ुर् मामले के र्थ्य
से सभन्द्न होने के कारण उसका कोई लाभ
उन्द्हें प्राप्र् नहीिं हो सकर्ा। उक्र् मामले में
वप्रन्द्टेड प्रोिामाा पर प्रसिंज्ञान आदेश पाररर्
ककया र्या िा, िबकक प्रथर्ुर् मामले में
वप्रन्द्टेड प्रोिामाा पर प्रसिंज्ञान आदेश पाररर्
नहीिं है। इसी प्रकार पुनरीक्षणकर्ाा विचि
ननणाय मोहम्मद इब्रादहम एििं अन्द्य बनाम
थटेट ऑि बबहार एििं अन्द्य उपरोक्र् का
भी कोई लाभ पुनरीक्षणकर्ाा प्राप्र् करने का
अचिकारी नहीिं है। उक्र् मामले में उन्द्मोिन
प्रािानापत्र के सम्बन्द्ि में आदेश पाररर् है,
िबकक प्रथर्ुर् मामला विद्िान अिर
न्द्यायालय द्िारा अपराि कािं प्रसिंज्ञान सलये
िाने से सम्बस्न्द्िर् है।

14.
इस
प्रकार
माननीय
न्द्यायालयों
द्िारा
उपरोक्र्
विचि
व्यिथिाओिं में प्रनर्पाददर् ससद्िान्द्र् के
आलोक में प्रथर्ुर् मामले के र्थ्यों एििं
पररस्थिनर्यों के सन्द्दभा में विद्िान अिर
न्द्यायालय द्िारा पाररर् आलोच्य आदेश में
की र्यी अििारणा विचि सम्मर् प्रर्ीर्
होर्ी है। आलोच्य आदेश के पररशीलन से
थपष्ट है कक विद्िान अिर न्द्यायालय ने
पत्रािली पर उपलब्ि साक्ष्य का न्द्यायोचिर्
विचलेषण कर आलोच्य आदेश पाररर् ककया
है। आलोच्य आदेश में न र्ो कोई
अशुद्िर्ा है, न कोई अननयसमर्र्ा है और
न ही कोई अिैिाननकर्ा है। विद्िान अिर
न्द्यायालय ने अपने ननदहर् क्षेत्राचिकार का
समुचिर् प्रयोर् करर्े हुये आलोच्य आदेश
पाररर् ककया है, स्िसमें हथर्क्षेप का कोई
औचित्क्य नहीिं है। पुनरीक्षण आिारहीन है,
िो ननरथर् ककये िाने योग्य है।
आदेश

दास्ण्डक पुनरीक्षण ननरथर् ककया
िार्ा है।

विद्िान अिर न्द्यायालय द्िारा
पाररर्
आलोच्य
आदेश
ददनािंककर्
03.02.2022 की पुस्ष्ट की िार्ी है।

अिर न्द्यायालय का असभलेख इस
ननणाय की एक प्रनर् के साि अविलम्ब
अिर न्द्यायालय को िापस प्रेवषर् ककया
िाये।"

8. It is apt to indicate that Memo of
Revision has not been placed on record,
7 All. Ravendra Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
499
though the same, to the view of this Court,
is relevant to ascertain some facts including
that as to whether therein the facts related
to filing of earlier Application U/s 482
Cr.P.C. No.5705 of 2022 were disclosed.

9. The order passed by the Revisional
Court dated 15.05.2024, relevant portion of
which is extracted herein-above, indicates
that applicants before the Revisional Court
concealed the materiel facts related to order
dated 26.08.2022 passed in Application
U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5705 of 2022, wherein
the summoning order dated 03.02.2022,
which was assailed before the Revisional
Court, was assailed, but the same was not
pressed.

10. In regard to the concealment of
facts, the view of the Hon'ble Apex Court
can
be
deduced
from
various
pronouncements.

11. In Oswal Fats & Oils Ltd. Vs.
Additional
Commissioner
(Administration),
Bareilly
Division,
Bareilly and others, (2010) 4 SCC 728 the
Hon'ble Apex Court held 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.

12. In Kishore Samrite vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and others, (2013) 2 SCC
398 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed and
held as under in Paras 34 to 39:-

"34. It has been consistently
stated by this Court that the entire journey
of a Judge is to discern the truth from the
pleadings, documents and arguments of the
parties, as truth is the basis of the Justicedelivery System.

35. With the passage of time, it
has been realised that people used to feel
proud to tell the truth in the Courts,
irrespective of the consequences but that
practice no longer proves true, in all cases.
The Court does not sit simply as an umpire
in a contest between two parties and
declare at the end of the combat as to who
has won and who has lost but it has a legal
duty of its own, independent of parties, to
take active role in the proceedings and
reach at the truth, which is the foundation
of administration of justice. Therefore, the
truth should become the ideal to inspire the
courts to pursue. This can be achieved by
statutorily mandating the Courts to become
active seekers of truth. To enable the
courts to ward off unjustified interference
in their working, those who indulge in
immoral acts like perjury, prevarication
and
motivated
falsehood,
must
be
appropriately dealt with. The parties must
state forthwith sufficient factual details to
the extent that it reduces the ability to put
forward false and exaggerated claims and
a litigant must approach the Court with
clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the
Court to ensure that dishonesty and any
attempt to surpass the legal process must
be effectively curbed and the Court must
ensure
that
there
is
no
wrongful,
unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as
a result of abuse of the process of the
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court. One way to curb this tendency is to
impose realistic or punitive costs.

36. The party not approaching
the Court with clean hands would be liable
to be non-suited and such party, who has
also succeeded in polluting the stream of
justice by making patently false statements,
cannot claim relief, especially under
Article 136 of the Constitution. While
approaching the court, a litigant must state
correct facts and come with clean hands.
Where such statement of facts is based on
some information, the source of such
information must also be disclosed. Totally
misconceived petition amounts to abuse of
the process of the court and such a litigant
is not required to be dealt with lightly, as a
petition
containing
misleading
and
inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an
ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the
process of the court. A litigant is bound to
make "full and true disclosure of facts".
(Refer : Tilokchand H.B. Motichand & Ors.
v. Munshi & Anr. [1969 (1) SCC 110]; A.
Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula
Vamsathu
Madalaya
Nandhavana
Paripalanai Sangam & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC
430]; Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar
Verma [(1995) SCC 1 421]; Abhyudya
Sanstha v. Union of India & Ors. [(2011) 6
SCC 145]; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Narmada Bachao Andolan & Anr. [(2011)
7 SCC 639]; Kalyaneshwari v. Union of
India & Anr. [(2011) 3 SCC 287)].

37. The person seeking equity
must do equity. It is not just the clean
hands, but also clean mind, clean heart and
clean
objective
that
are
the
equifundamentals of judicious litigation. The
legal maxim jure naturae aequum est
neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria
fieri locupletiorem, which means that it is a
law of nature that one should not be
enriched by the loss or injury to another, is
the percept for Courts. Wide jurisdiction of
the court should not become a source of
abuse of the process of law by the
disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is
also necessary to ensure that the litigation
is genuine, not motivated by extraneous
considerations and imposes an obligation
upon the litigant to disclose the true facts
and approach the court with clean hands.

38. No litigant can play "hide and
seek" with the courts or adopt "pick and
choose". True facts ought to be disclosed as
the Court knows law, but not facts. One,
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
impermissible to a litigant or even as a
technique of advocacy. In such cases, the
Court is duty bound to discharge rule nisi
and such applicant is required to be dealt
with for contempt of court for abusing the
process of the court. {K.D. Sharma v. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. [(2008) 12
SCC 481].

39. Another settled canon of
administration of justice is that no litigant
should be permitted to misuse the judicial
process by filing frivolous petitions. No
litigant has a right to unlimited drought
upon the court time and public money in
order to get his affairs settled in the
manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice
should not be used as a licence to file
misconceived
and
frivolous
petitions.
Buddhi Kota
Subbarao
(Dr.)
v. K.
Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530)."

13. In Kishore Samrite (supra), the
Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that it
is the bounden duty of the Court to ensure
that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass
the legal process must be effectively curved
and the Court must ensure that there is no
wrongful unauthorized or unjust gain to
any one as a result of abuse of the process
7 All. Ravendra Shukla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
501
of the Court and one way to curve this
tendency is to impose realistic or punitive
costs.

14. In Kishore Samrite (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no litigant
can play "hide and seek" with the courts or
adopt "pick and choose". True facts ought
to be disclosed as the court knows law, but
not facts. One, 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 impermissible to a litigant or even
as a technique of advocacy. In such cases,
the court is duty-bound to discharge rule
nisi and such applicant is required to be
dealt with for contempt of court for abusing
the process of court.

15. The present one is the second
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. on the same
facts and for the same reliefs except with
regard to the challenge made to the order
dated 15.05.2024 passed by the revisional
Court in the revision filed by the applicants
challenging the summoning order dated
03.02.2022, which was challenged earlier
in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.5705
of 2022 and this Court did not cause
interference in the same, and as such this
Court finds it appropriate to take note of
the observations made by the Hon'ble Apex
Court passed in the case of Bhisham Lal
Verma Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1399 .
The relevant para are extracted hereinunder:-

"6. Long thereafter, the petitioner
filed his first petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., viz., Criminal Misc. Application
No. 8465 of 2018, before the Allahabad
High Court. Therein, he chose to challenge
only the Government's sanction order dated
03.12.2013.
The
State
opposed
the
application, pointing out that a challenge
to the sanction could be made before the
Trial Court. Thereupon, the petitioner's
counsel sought liberty to approach the
Trial Court by way of an appropriate
application
challenging
the
sanction.
Accepting that plea, the High Court
disposed of the application, vide order
dated 15.12.2020, granting liberty to the
petitioner to approach the Trial Court and
challenge the sanction order. Significantly,
at the time of filing of this first petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the charge
sheet was very much on record and the
learned Sessions Judge, Rampur, had
already taken cognizance.

7. However, it was only in the
year 2022 that the petitioner felt inspired to
file a second petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C., viz., Criminal Misc. Application
No. 2014 of 2022. His prayers therein were
to
quash
the
charge
sheet
dated
30.04.2015; the cognizance order dated
12.06.2015; and the proceedings in Special
Case No. 19 of 2016, insofar as he was
concerned. This application was dismissed
by the Allahabad High Court, vide order
dated 20.02.2023. Therein, the High Court
noted that the petitioner had earlier filed
Criminal Misc. Application No. 8465 of
2018 under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a
limited prayer - to quash the sanction order
dated 30.12.2013. Holding that it was not
open to the petitioner to go on challenging
the proceedings one by one and as he had
not felt aggrieved by the charge sheet or
the order of cognizance when he had filed
the first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the High Court concluded that the
subsequent petition challenging the same
would not be maintainable and dismissed
the application. It is against this order that
the petitioner approached this Court by
way of the present case.
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. On behalf of the petitioner, Mr.
Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, learned
senior counsel, would argue that a second
petition is maintainable under Section 482
Cr.P.C.. He relied on the judgment of this
Court
in
Superintendent
and
Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West
Bengal vs. Mohan Singh and others1.
Therein, it was held that a subsequent
application under Section 561-A of the
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure,
1898,
presently Section 482 Cr.P.C, would be
maintainable in changed circumstances. It
was affirmed that a subsequent application,
which is not a (1975) 3 SCC 706 repeat
application squarely on the same facts and
circumstances, would be maintainable. To
the same effect was the more recent
decision of this Court in Anil Khadkiwala
vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
and
another2.
Earlier,
in
S.M.S.
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Neeta Bhalla and
another 3, this Court held that when the
first petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C was
withdrawn with liberty to avail remedies, if
any, available in law, the High Court
would not be denuded of its inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
being petitioned again and the principle of
res judicata would not stand attracted.
Again, in Vinod Kumar, IAS. vs. Union of
India and others4, a 3-Judge Bench of this
Court observed that dismissal of an earlier
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C would
not bar filing of a subsequent petition
thereunder in case the facts so justify.

9. Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned
amicus curiae, would however point out
that entertainment of the second petition in
Mohan Singh (supra) was held permissible
as the circumstances obtaining at the time
of the subsequent petition were clearly
different from what they were at the time of
the
earlier
one
and
that
was
the
distinguishing factor which saved the
second petition. He would further point out
that, in Simrikhia vs. Dolley (2019) 17 SCC
294 (2007) 4 SCC 70 Writ Petition No. 255
of 2021, decided on 29.06.2021 = 2021
SCC OnLine SC 559 Mukherjee and
Chhabi Mukherjee and another 5, this
Court
cautioned
that
the
inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C
cannot be invoked to override the bar of
review
under
Section
362
Cr.P.C.
Reference was made to Sooraj Devi vs.
Pyare Lal and another 6 which held that
the inherent power of the Court could not
be exercised for doing that which is
specifically prohibited by the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. He also drew
our
attention
to
R.
Annapurna
vs.
Ramadugu Anantha Krishna Sastry and
others7, wherein a quash petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed on
28.01.1995 and without mentioning the
same, another petition was filed under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a similar prayer.
Noting that the second petition was not
made on the strength of anything which had
developed after 28.01.1995 but only on the
facts which subsisted prior to that date, this
Court held that the second petition was not
maintainable, as the High Court did not
have the power to upset the order dated
28.01.1995 which had attained finality.

10. In S. Madan Kumar vs. K.
Arjunan 8, the Madras High Court
observed that a person who invokes Section
482 Cr.P.C. should honestly come before
the Court raising all the pleas available to
him at that point of (1990) 2 SCC 437
(1981) 1 SCC 500 (2002) 10 SCC 401
(2006) 1 MWN (Cri) DCC 1 = 2006 SCC
Online Mad 94 time and he is not supposed
to approach the Court with instalment
pleas. It was further observed that there
may be a change of circumstances during
the course of criminal proceedings which
would give scope for the person aggrieved
7 All. Prem Narayan Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
503
to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the
Court, but when he is posted with all the
facts and circumstances of a case, he
cannot withhold part of it for the purpose
of filing yet another petition seeking the
same relief.

11.
We
are
in
complete
agreement with these observations of the
Madras High Court. Though it is clear that
there can be no blanket rule that a second
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would
not lie in any situation and it would depend
upon the facts and circumstances of the
individual case, it is not open to a person
aggrieved to raise one plea after the other,
by invoking the jurisdiction of the High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., though
all such pleas were very much available
even at the first instance. Permitting the
filing of successive petitions under Section
482 Cr.P.C. ignoring this principle would
enable an ingenious accused to effectively
stall the proceedings against him to suit his
own interest and convenience, by filing one
petition after another under Section 482
Cr.P.C., irrespective of when the cause
therefor arose. Such abuse of process
cannot be permitted."

16. In view of above, this second
application on the same grounds is not
maintainable.

17. Having considered the aforesaid
facts of the case, as also taking note of the
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the judgments referred above, this Court is
of the view that no indulgence in the matter
is required. Accordingly, the present
application is rejected. No order as to
costs.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 503
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.07.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 6521 of 2024

Prem Narayan Mishra ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Dhirendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 156(3), 202 & 482 -
Application U/s 482 - for quashing the
impugned orders - wherein Application of the
applicant moved U/section 156(3) Cr.P.C was
rejected being dispute in question is related with
a forged Will which comes under the purview of
a civil court and the said order was also affirmed
by the revisional court -in view of perusal of
facts of the case, court finds that, impugned
orders have rightly been passed as the dispute
essentially appears to be a civil dispute - held, in
view of law laid down under the various
pronouncement by the Hon'ble Apex court, a
person should not be permitted to give a
criminal colour to a civil dispute - accordingly,
present Application is dismissed. (Para - 20, 21)

Application u/s 482 Dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Sukhwasi Vs St. of U.P. - 2007 SCC OnLine
All 1088,

2. Lalita Kumari Vs St. of U.P. - (2014) 2 SCC 1

3. Ramdev Food Products Pvt. Ltd.Vs St. of Guj.
- (2015) 6 SCC 439),

4. Priyanka Srivastava Vs St. of U.P., - (2015) 6
SCC 287,

5. Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy Vs Vs
Narayana Reddy [(1976) 3 SCC 252),