# Sayed Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 768
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-02-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 23735 of 2022
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sayed-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50019
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

G.A., Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad

Concealment
of
fact-Applicant
earlier
approached the Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing summoning order and charge-sheetfiled another Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of one revisional order-then he went
before
Apex
Court
for
expediting
the
proceedings of the Application- further filed an
Application in pending Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. to dismiss it with liberty to file better
petition-did not wait for logical conclusion of any
one petition-Criminal revision was not filed with
full disclosure-act of concealment-Application
rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,997 of 42,421. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39997 for what follows._

768 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compliant has been lodged by malicious
intention. In exercise of power under
Section 482 CrPC, the Court does not
examine the correctness of the allegations
in a compliant except in exceptionally rare
cases where it is patently clear that the
allegations are frivolous or do not disclose
any offence. The compliant before the
learned Magistrate is not such a case which
should be quashed at the inception without
further trial.

15. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that the present matter does not fall in any
of the categories recognized by the Apex
Court, which might justify interference by
this
Court
in
order
to
quash
the
proceedings. Therefore, the prayer for
quashing the summoning order as well as
the
entire
proceedings
of
aforesaid
complaint case is refused as I do not see
any abuse of the court's process either.

16. The present application lacks
merit and is, accordingly, rejected.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 768
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 23735 of 2022
connected with
Application U/S 482. No.13494 of 2021

Sayed Ahmad ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Atul Sharma, Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma,
Sri Kartikeya Saran
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Shamsuddin Ahmad

Concealment
of
fact-Applicant
earlier
approached the Court u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing summoning order and charge-sheetfiled another Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for
quashing of one revisional order-then he went
before
Apex
Court
for
expediting
the
proceedings of the Application- further filed an
Application in pending Application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. to dismiss it with liberty to file better
petition-did not wait for logical conclusion of any
one petition-Criminal revision was not filed with
full disclosure-act of concealment-Application
rejected. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav Vs Karamveer
Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society : (2013) 11
SCC 531

2. Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu :
(2013) 9 SCC 199

3. Vijay Kumar Ghai Vs St. of W.B. : (2022) 7
SCC 124

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. The present two applications under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. are connected together
as they are of the same accused in the same
case and as such are being decided together
by a common judgement.

2. The applicant Sayeed Ahmad
initially filed a Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021
(Sayeed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and
another) with the following prayers :-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to allow this
application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
and
quash
the
charge-sheet
dated
23.06.2019 as well as summoning order
4 All. Sayed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
769
dated 27.11.2020 arising out of Case Crime
No. 0734 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420
IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad
pending in the court of CJM, Allahabad.

It is further prayed that this
Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the
entire proceedings of Case Crime No. 0734
of 2017, under Sections 406, 420 IPC, P.S.
Civil Lines, District Allahabad, during the
pendency of the present application u/s 482
Cr.P.C."

3. The applicant Sayeed Ahmad also
filed another Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23735 of 2022
(Sayeed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and
another) with the following prayers :-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously
be
pleased
to
allow
the
application and pleased to quash the
impugned order dated 15.04.2022 passed
by Sessions Judge, Allahabad as well as
entire proceeding arising out of Case Crime
No. 0734 of 2017, under Sections 406, 420
IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad
pending in the court of CJM, Allahabad.

It is further prayed that further
proceedings in Case No. 05 of 2020 (State
Vs. Sayeed Ahmad) arising out of Case
Crime No. 0734 of 2017, under Sections
406, 420 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District
Allahabad pending in the court of CJM,
Allahabad be stayed during the pendency
of this application before this Hon'ble
Court."

4. The facts arising in the present case
in brief are that a FIR was lodged on
25.11.2017 by Nabi Bakhsh as Case Crime
No. 734 of 2017 under Sections 406, 420
IPC against Sayeed Ahmad (the present
applicant), Kavi Ahmad S/o Sayeed Ahmad
and Shameem Ahmad. The allegation in the
same
was
that
from
15.05.2008
to
08.06.2008, the first informant purchased
the property from Sayeed Ahmad for which
he gave several cheques from different
bank
accounts
of
different
accounts
totalling Rs. 80 lakhs. When the first
informant requested the
applicant
to
execute a sale-deed for the same, he
continued delaying it on one or the other
pretext. Subsequently when he demanded
back his money, he was threatened. After
fixing the deal with the applicant, the said
land was decided to be sold to one Sardar
Jogendar Singh of Hotel Milan and
advance money was taken by the accused
and with an intention to cheat, he is trying
to get a map sanctioned for getting a
building constructed. He has also got an
agreement to sale executed and registered
with other persons. The matter was
investigated and a charge sheet dated
23.06.2019 was submitted under Section
406 IPC against the applicant Sayeed
Ahmad. In so far as Kavi Ahmad and
Shameem Ahmad are concerned, they were
the accused persons not charge sheeted and
their names were in column 12 of the
charge sheet. The trial court subsequently
on 27.11.2020 took cognizance upon the
charge sheet and summoned the accused
applicant
under
Section
406
IPC.
Subsequently a supplementary charge sheet
dated 07.03.2021 was submitted against the
applicant adding Section 420 IPC also. The
applicant moved an application being paper
no. 16-Kha before the concerned court
challenging the validity of the second
charge sheet. The present petitions have
thus been filed with the prayers as stated
above. The applicant is shown to be
involved in 11 other criminal cases which
have been disclosed and explained in para
37 of the affidavit filed in support of the
770 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
connected Criminal Misc. Application U/S
482 Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021, the same is
quoted here-in-below :-

"37. That the criminal history
against the applicant is being narrated here
in below along with the status :-

I. Case Crime No. 363 of 2014,
under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471
IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, District Allahabad in
which the applicant has been granted bail.

II. Case Crime No. 412 of 1993,
under Sections 365, 347, 386, 506 IPC, P.S.
Civil Lines, District Allahabad in which the
applicant has been granted bail.

III. Case Crime No. 707 of 2008,
under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 IPC,
P.S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad in
which on 16.03.2009, the final report was
filed.

IV. Case Crime No. 706 of 2008,
under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 IPC,
P.S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad in
which on 19.04.2009, the final report was
filed.

V. Case Crime No. 706 of 2008,
under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 IPC,
P.S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad in
which on 26.03.2009, the final report was
filed.

VI. Case Crime No. 697 of 2008,
under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 IPC,
P.S. Colonelganj, District Allahabad in which
on 26.03.2009, the final report was filed.

VII. Case Crime No. 696 of 2008, under
Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 IPC, P.S.
Colonelganj, District Allahabad in which
on 19.04.2009, the final report was filed.

VIII. Case Crime No. 80 of 2008,
under Section 420 IPC, P.S. Jhunsi (Civil
Lines), District Allahabad in which on
19.04.2009, the final report was filed.

IX. Case Crime No. 80 of 2008,
under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 471,
504, 506, 120-B IPC, P.S. Civil Lines,
District Allahabad in which on 02.05.2008,
the final report was filed.

X. Case Crime No. 75 of 2001,
under Sections 64, 302, 201 IPC, P.S.
Karchana, District Allahabad in which on
30.10.2012, the final report was filed.

XI. Case Crime No. 1038 of
1992, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307,
506 IPC, P.S. unknown, District Allahabad
in which the final report was filed.

5. In para 36 of the affidavit it is
stated that the applicant is an Ex-MLA and
a reputed person in society. He is said an
old and sick person suffering from various
diseases and has been hospitalized for
number of times.

6. Subsequently a Criminal Misc.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23735 of
2022 was filed challenging the order dated
15.04.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge,
Allahabad and also the entire proceedings
of the case as pending before the trial court.

7. A Criminal Revision was filed by
the applicant before the Sessions Judge,
Allahabad
against
the
order
dated
27.11.2020 by which the CJM Allahabad
took cognizance of the offence under
Section 406 IPC. The said Criminal
Revision was numbered as Criminal
Revision No. 71 of 2022. The said revision
as was filed before the Sessions Judge,
Allahabad, the memo of which has been
4 All. Sayed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
771
annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the
Supplementary Affidavit dated 19.09.2022
is dated 27.01.2022 with the following
prayer:-

"It is therefore most respectfully
prayed that Hon'ble Court kindly be
pleased to summon the record from the
Court below and set-aside order dated
27.11.2020 passed by A.C.J.M. Court No.
4, Allahabad in Criminal Case No. 05 of
2020, U/s 406 IPC, P.S. Civil Lines, Crime
No.
0734
of
2017,
District
Prayagraj/Allahabad."

8. In Criminal Misc. Application U/S
482 Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021, an
application
for
withdrawal
dated
18.01.2022 was filed with the following
prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously
be
pleased
to
allow
the
application and be please to dismiss the
Criminal Misc. Application (Under Section
482 of Cr.P.C.) as withdrawn with liberty
to file a fresh so that justice be done."

9. Para 4 of the said affidavit in
support of the withdrawal application states
the reason for getting the same withdrawn
which reads that there are some typing
errors as well as clerical errors which
cannot be corrected by supplementary
affidavit and as such the applicant does not
press the said criminal misc. application
which is liable to be dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh. Para
4 of the said affidavit reads as follows:-

"4. That during the pendency of
the
aforementioned
Criminal
Misc.
Application before this Hon'ble Court, it is
pointed out that there are some typing as
well as clerical errors in the affidavit, the
same cannot be corrected by supplementary
affidavit. Therefore the applicant does not
want to press the present Criminal Misc.
Application and same is liable to be
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file
a fresh."

10. The said application was ordered
to be listed with previous papers at an early
date vide order dated 20.01.2022 and was
also pending for disposal.

11. In the meantime the said Criminal
Revision was filed before the Sessions
Judge in which the disclosure of the said
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been done.
In para 6 under the heading of "Fact in
brief" which consist of six paragraph before
the "Grounds" as taken in the revision a
disclosure has been done regarding the
pendency of a petition under section 482
Cr.P.C. before this Court. Para 6 of the
same reads as follows:-

"6. That the Revisionist has filed
a petition U/S 482 Cr.P.C. before the
Hon'ble High Court to quash the charge
sheet of the case the same has been
pending."

12. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran and Sri
Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant in Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23735 of 2022 and Sri
Atul Sharma, learned counsel for the
applicant in Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021, Sri
Shamsuddin Ahmad, learned counsel for
the first informant and Sri J.B. Singh,
learned counsel for the State in both the
Applications U/S 482 Cr.P.C.

13. This Court has perused the entire
records of both the petitions.
772 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Learned counsel for the applicant
in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021 (Sayeed Ahmad
Vs. State of U.P. and another) presses his
application
for
withdrawal
dated
18.01.2022.

15. Learned counsels for the applicant
in Application U/S 482 No. 23735 of 2022
(Sayeed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and
another) argued that the proceedings as
initiated against the applicant are totally an
abuse of process of Court. It is argued that
the revisional court has illegally dismissed
the revision vide impugned order dated
15.04.2022 without going into the merits of
the matter and in an illegal and arbitrary
manner. It is argued that the Investigating
Officer found no evidence against the coaccused Kavi Ahmad and Shameem
Ahmad and as such exonerated them. The
same goes to show that the prosecution
evidence is false and concocted as they
were also named in the FIR and there were
allegations against them. It is argued that
the trial court in a mechanical manner
without applying judicial mind, took
cognizance upon the charge sheet and
summoned the applicant vide order dated
27.11.2020. It is argued that the 2nd charge
sheet as submitted by the Investigating
Officer is totally illegal and the same
cannot be permitted to be considered by the
trial court. It is argued that even the trial
court which took cognizance on the
supplementary charge sheet u/s 420 IPC
vide order dated 15.09.2021 has stated in
the same that the same is illegal and
irregular. It is argued that in the entire case,
no original document, receipt or bank
statement have been filed and there is no
report of any forensic expert to prove the
authenticity of the documents and as such
the said case cannot proceed. It is argued
while placing para 29, 30, 31, 33 of the
affidavit filed in support of application U/S
482 Cr.P.C. that the applicant aggrieved by
the summoning order dated 27.11.2020 as
well as charge-sheet dated 23.06.2019 and
had filed a Criminal Misc. Application U/S
482 Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021 before this
Court on 03.07.2021, however, due to
Covid-19, the said application could not be
taken up on several dates and on
17.01.2022, an application for withdrawal
with an affidavit was filed which is dated
17.01.2022. The said application for
withdrawal supported by an affidavit is
pending for final disposal. The applicant
had no option except to challenge the
summoning order as well as charge sheet
before the revisional court. The revisional
court vide order dated 15.04.2022 has
dismissed the revision without going into
the facts that the summoning order is bad.
It is argued that the court below vide order
dated 19.05.2022 has issued NBW against
the applicant. Para 34 of the affidavit has
been placed before the Court for the same.
It is argued that the applicant was in the
process of selling his land to one Sardar
Jogendar Singh, a close associate of the
first informant/opposite party no. 2 and
Sardar Jogendar Singh has paid some part
of money to him but due to delay of
approval of map by the Development
Authority, the money was refunded to
Sardar Jogendar Singh. Thereafter Sardar
Jogendar Singh with bad intention tried to
take
possession
on
some
land
and
submitted
forged
papers
in
the
Development Authority. The applicant on
coming to know of it moved an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in which he
was summoned under Section 420 IPC but
in the meantime in May, 2021, Jogendar
Singh died. When Joginder Singh came to
know about financial transaction between
the applicant and the first informant, he
immediately approached the first informant
4 All. Sayed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
773
and persuaded him not to accept money
upon re-payment. It is argued that the first
informant and the applicant are known to
each other and have cordial relationship
and owing to the same, the applicant had
sought a loan from the first informant. The
present case is a false case. It is further
argued that the applicant had moved an
application under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 before the S.S.P. Prayagraj to
provide the details of the criminal cases
pending against him on which a reply was
received stating therein that there are seven
cases pending against the applicant. The
same have been mentioned in para 44 of
the affidavit which are as follows :-

(I) Case Crime No. 80 of 2008
under Sections 323, 406, 420, 504, 506
IPC,
Police
Station
Jhunsi,
District
Prayagraj.

(II) Case Crime No. 568 of 2019,
under Section 3/5 Damages of Public
Property Act, Police Station Kareli, District
Prayagraj.

(III) Case Crime No. 734 of 2017,
under Section 406, 420 IPC, Police Station
Civil Lines, District Prayagraj.

(IV) Case Crime No. 363 of 2014,
under Section 419, 420, 406 IPC, Police
Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj.

(V) Case Crime No. 1038 of
1992, under Section 147, 148, 149, 307,
506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines,
District Prayagraj.

(VI) Case Crime No. 412 of
1993, under Sections 363, 368, 384, 468,
506 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines,
District Prayagraj.

(VII) Case Crime No. 80 of 2008,
under Section 384, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504,
506, 120-B IPC, Police Station Civil Lines,
District Prayagraj.

16. As such the present petition
deserves to be allowed and the proceedings
deserves to be quashed.

17. Per contra learned counsel for the
first informant and learned A.G.A. opposed
the prayer for quashing and vehemently
argued that the applicant is involved in the
present case. He is named in the FIR and
there are allegations against him. It is argued
that inasmuch as the transaction between the
applicant and opposite party no. 2 are
concerned, the fact of the same are admitted
by the accused applicant in both the
applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. It is
argued that the applicant had been resorting
to filing petitions in courts for the same relief
without even waiting patiently for decision of
a petition. It is argued that the first petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed for
quashing of the Charge Sheet dated
23.06.2019,
summoning
order
dated
27.11.2020 and the entire proceedings of the
trial court which remained pending in which
even the applicant approached the Apex
Court in Writ Petition (s) (Criminal) No. 483
of 2021 with the grievance that his petition is
pending before the High Court and has not
been heard since long and as such the matter
was directed to be expedited vide order dated
26.11.2021. Learned counsel for the first
informant/opposite party no. 2 has placed
before the Court the order dated 26.11.2021
of the Apex Court which has been filed as
annexure no. 1 to his objection affidavit dated
08.02.2022. The said order reads as follows:-

"The grievance of the petitioner is
that his petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
774 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is pending before the High Court and has
not been heard since long.

Considering
the
facts
and
circumstances of this case, we find it
appropriate
that
the
petitioner
may
approach the High Court for expeditious
disposal of his petition In case such
application is filed, the High Court may
consider expediting the matter and decide
in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation
the writ petition stands dismissed."

18. It is argued that then the applicant
moved an application for withdrawal of the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on
the ground that it contains typographical
and clerical errors which were not possible
to be corrected by means of an affidavit
and then filed Criminal Revision before the
Sessions Judge concerned against the
summoning order dated 27.11.2022 and
then on dismissal of the same, again
approached this Court in Criminal Misc.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 23735 of
2022, Sayeed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and
another. It is argued that the applicant had
been filing multiple petitions for the same
reliefs and had been hunting different
forums. It is argued that the conduct of the
applicant was totally irrational and the
present
application
deserves
to
be
dismissed.

19. After having heard learned
counsel for the parties and perusing the
records, it is evident that the applicant
initially filed Criminal Misc. Application
U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13494 of 2021 on
13.07.2021 for quashing of the charge sheet
dated 23.06.2019, summoning order dated
27.11.2020 and the entire proceeding as
pending before the trial court. The said
petition remained pending before this Court
and aggrieved by the pendency, the
applicant approached the Apex Court for
expediting its hearing which was expedited
vide order dated 26.11.2021. Subsequently
an
application
for
withdrawal
dated
17.01.2022 was filed by the applicant
stating therein in para 4 that the application
u/s 482 Cr.P.C. suffers from typographical
and clerical errors which cannot be
corrected through an affidavit and as such
the said application be dismissed as
withdrawn with liberty to file a better fresh
petition. On the said application, an
objection
was
moved
by
the
first
informant/opposite party no. 2. The said
application remained pending for disposal.
In the meantime a Criminal Revision No.
71 of 2022 was filed before the Sessions
Judge, Allahabad on 27.01.2022 with the
prayer
to
set-aside
the
order
dated
27.11.2020 passed by the trial court. In
para 6 of the same, there is a passing
reference of an application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. being filed before the High
Court to quash the charge sheet of the case
which is pending. The said revision stood
dismissed vide judgment and order dated
15.04.2022 passed by the concerned
revisional court. Subsequently a Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.
23735 of 2022, Sayeed Ahmad Vs. State of
U.P. and another was filed on 03.08.2022
before this Court with the prayer to quash
the order dated 15.04.2022 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Allahabad and to quash the
entire proceedings of the trial court. The
same has been addressed before the Court.
The applicant with the above discussions
was approaching this Court twice and the
Sessions Judge concerned in its revisional
jurisdiction in substance for the termination
of the court proceedings which in either
manner may be with the prayers of
quashing the charge sheet, summoning
4 All. Sayed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
775
order, entire proceedings of the trial court.
The grounds as taken for getting Criminal
Misc. Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No.
13494 of 2021 withdrawn despite the
applicant approaching the Apex Court for
his grievance of the matter not being
decided expeditiously is that the same
suffers from serious typographical and
clerical errors which cannot be corrected by
an affidavit. Before the revisional court, the
only
disclosure
of
filing
the
said
application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. is by reading
para 6 of the memo of revision which is
only a passing reference of the said fact.
After dismissal of the revision against it the
Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. No. 23735 of 2022 has been for
termination of the proceedings of the trial
court.

20. In the case of Bhaskar Laxman
Jadhav
Vs.
Karamveer
Kakasaheb
Wagh Education Society : (2013) 11 SCC
531 the Apex Court while dealing with a
situation of suppression of fact held as
follows:

"42. While dealing with the
conduct of the parties, we may also notice
the submission of learned counsel for
Respondent 1 to the effect that the
petitioners are guilty of suppression of a
material fact from this Court, namely, the
rejection
on
2-5-2003
of
the
first
application for extension of time filed by
the trustees and the finality attached to it.
These facts have not been clearly disclosed
to this Court by the petitioners. It was
submitted that in view of the suppression,
special leave to appeal should not be
granted to the petitioners.

43. The learned counsel for the
petitioners submitted that no material facts
have been withheld from this Court. It was
submitted that while the order dated 2-52003 was undoubtedly not filed, its
existence was not material in view of
subsequent developments that had taken
place. We cannot agree.

44. It is not for a litigant to
decide
what
fact
is
material
for
adjudicating a case and what is not
material. It is the obligation of a litigant to
disclose all the facts of a case and leave the
decision making to the Court. True, there is
a mention of the order dated 2-5-2003 in
the order dated 24-7-2006 passed by the
JCC, but that is not enough disclosure. The
petitioners have not clearly disclosed the
facts and circumstances in which the order
dated 2-5-2003 was passed or that it has
attained finality.

45. We may only refer to two
cases on this subject. In Hari Narain v.
Badri Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558 stress was
laid on litigants eschewing inaccurate,
untrue or misleading statements, otherwise
leave granted to an appellant may be
revoked. It was observed as follows: (AIR
p. 1560, para 9)

".........It is of utmost importance
that in making material statements and
setting forth grounds in applications for
special leave 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 would be unfair to
betray the confidence of the Court by
making statements which are untrue and
misleading. That is why we have come to
the conclusion that in the present case,
special leave granted to the appellant
ought to be revoked. Accordingly, special
776 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
leave is revoked and the appeal is
dismissed. The appellant will pay the costs
of the respondent."

46. More recently, in Ramjas
Foundation v. Union of India, (2010) 14
SCC 38 the case law on the subject was
discussed. It was held that if a litigant does
not come to the Court with clean hands, he
is not entitled to be heard and indeed, such
a person is not entitled to any relief from
any judicial forum. It was said: (SCC p. 51,
para 21)

"21. The principle that a person
who does not come to the court with clean
hands is not entitled to be heard on the
merits of his grievance and, in any case,
such person is not entitled to any relief is
applicable not only to the petitions filed
under Articles 32, 226 and 136 of the
Constitution but also to the cases instituted
in others courts and judicial forums. The
object underlying the principle is that every
court is not only entitled but is duty bound
to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants
who do not have any respect for truth and
who try to pollute the stream of justice by
resorting to falsehood or by making
misstatement or by suppressing facts which
have a bearing on adjudication of the
issue(s) arising in the case."

47. A mere reference to the order
dated 2-5-2003, en passant, in the order
dated 24-7-2006 does not serve the
requirement of disclosure. It is not for the
Court to look into every word of the
pleadings, documents and annexures to fish
out a fact. It is for the litigant to come
upfront and clean with all material facts
and then, on the basis of the submissions
made by learned counsel, leave it to the
Court to determine whether or not a
particular fact is relevant for arriving at a
decision. Unfortunately, the petitioners
have not done this and must suffer the
consequence thereof."

(emphasis supplied)

21. Further in the case of Moti Lal
Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu :
(2013) 9 SCC 199 the Apex Court again
while
dealing
with
a
situation
of
suppression of a fact has held as follows:

"19. The second limb of the
submission is whether in the obtaining
factual matrix, the order passed by the
High Court discharging the accusedrespondent 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. Anyone 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,
expressio
falsi,
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
4 All. Sayed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
777
is bound to collapse". However, as the
order has been obtained by practicing
fraud and suppressing material fact before
a court of law to gain advantage, the said
order cannot be allowed to stand. That
apart, we have dealt with regard to the
legal sustainability of the order in detail.
Under
these
circumstances,
we
are
disposed to think that the power under
Article 142 of the Constitution is required
to be invoked to do complete justice
between the parties. Cognizance of the
offences had been rightly taken by the
learned Magistrate and charges, as we
find, have been correctly framed by the
learned trial Judge. A victim of a crime has
as much right to get justice from the court
as an accused who enjoys the benefit of
innocence till the allegations are proven
against him. In the case at hand, when an
order of quashment of summons has been
obtained by suppression, this Court has an
obligation to set aside the said order and
restore the order framing charges and
direct the trial to go on. And we so direct."
(emphasis supplied)

22. The Apex Court in the case of
Vijay Kumar Ghai v. State of W.B. :
(2022) 7 SCC 124 has in paragraphs 11,
12, 13, 14 and 17 while dealing with the
issue of forum shopping and deprecating it
has stated as follows:

"11. Predominantly, the Indian
Judiciary has time and again reiterated that
forum shopping takes several hues and
shades but the concept of "forum shopping"
has not been rendered an exclusive
definition in any Indian statute. Forum
shopping
as
per
Merriam-Webster
Dictionary is:

"The practice of choosing the
court in which to bring an action from
among those courts that could properly
exercise
jurisdiction
based
on
determination of which court is likely to
provide the most favourable outcome."

12.
The
Indian
Judiciary's
observation and obiter dicta has aided in
streamlining the concept of forum shopping
in the Indian legal system. This Court has
condemned the practice of forum shopping
by litigants and termed it as an abuse of law
and also deciphered different categories of
forum shopping.

13. A two-Judge Bench of this
Court in Union of India v. Cipla Ltd.
[Union of India v. Cipla Ltd., (2017) 5 SCC
262] has laid down factors which lead to
the practice of forum shopping or choice of
forum by the litigants which are as follows
: (SCC pp. 318-20, paras 148-51 & 155)

"148. A classic example of forum
shopping is when litigant approaches one
court for relief but does not get the desired
relief and then approaches another court for
the same relief. This occurred in Rajiv
Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rajiv
Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8
SCC 525] . The respondent mother of a
young child had filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court
and apparently did not get the required
relief from that Court. She then filed a
petition in the Delhi High Court also for a
writ of habeas corpus and obtained the
necessary relief. Notwithstanding this, this
Court did not interfere with the order
[Priyanka Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi),
1999 SCC OnLine Del 192] passed by the
Delhi High Court for the reason that this
Court ascertained the views of the child and
found that she did not want to even talk to
her adoptive parents and therefore the
custody of 12 the child granted by the
778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Delhi High Court to the respondent mother
was not interfered with. The decision of
this Court is on its own facts, even though
it is a classic case of forum shopping.

149. In Arathi Bandi v. Bandi
Jagadrakshaka Rao [Arathi Bandi v. Bandi
Jagadraksha"148. A classic example of
forum shopping is when litigant approaches
one court for relief but does not get the
desired relief and then approaches another
court for the same relief. This occurred in
Rajiv Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi) [Rajiv
Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi), (1999) 8
SCC 525] . The respondent mother of a
young child had filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus in the Rajasthan High Court
and apparently did not get the required
relief from that Court. She then filed a
petition in the Delhi High Court also for a
writ of habeas corpus and obtained the
necessary relief. Notwithstanding this, this
Court did not interfere with the order
[Priyanka Bhatia v. State (NCT of Delhi),
1999 SCC OnLine Del 192] passed by the
Delhi High Court for the reason that this
Court ascertained the views of the child
anka Rao, (2013) 15 SCC 790 : (2014) 5
SCC (Civ) 475] this Court noted that
jurisdiction in a court is not attracted by the
operation
or
creation
of
fortuitous
circumstances. In that case, circumstances
were created by one of the parties to the
dispute to confer jurisdiction on a particular
High Court. This was frowned upon by this
Court by observing that to allow the
assumption of jurisdiction in created
circumstances
would
only
result
in
encouraging forum shopping.

150. Another case of creating
circumstances for the purposes of forum
shopping was World Tanker Carrier Corpn.
v. SNP Shipping Services (P) Ltd. [World
Tanker Carrier Corpn. v. SNP Shipping
Services (P) Ltd., (1998) 5 SCC 310]
wherein
it
was
observed
that
the
respondent/plaintiff had made a deliberate
attempt to bring the cause of action,
namely, a collision between two vessels on
the high seas within the jurisdiction of the
Bombay High Court. Bringing one of the
vessels to Bombay in order to confer
jurisdiction on the Bombay High Court had
the character of forum shopping rather than
anything else.

151. Another form of forum
shopping is taking advantage of a view held
by a particular High Court in contrast to a
different view held by another High Court.
In Ambica Industries v. CCE [Ambica
Industries v. CCE, (2007) 6 SCC 769] the
assessee was from Lucknow. It challenged
an 13 order [Ambica Industries v. CCE,
2003 SCC OnLine CESTAT 1365] passed
by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax
Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT") located in
Delhi before the Delhi High Court.
CESTAT had jurisdiction over the State of
Uttar
Pradesh,
NCT
of
Delhi
and
Maharashtra. The Delhi High Court did not
entertain the proceedings initiated by the
assessee for want of territorial jurisdiction.
Dismissing the assessee's appeal this Court
gave the example of an assessee affected by
an assessment order in Bombay invoking
the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court to
take advantage of the law laid down by the
Delhi High Court or an assessee affected by
an order of assessment made at Bombay
invoking the jurisdiction of the Allahabad
High Court to take advantage of the law
laid down by it and consequently evade the
law laid down by the Bombay High Court.
It was said that this could not be allowed
and circumstances such as this would lead
to some sort of judicial anarchy.

***
4 All. Sayed Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
779

155. The decisions referred to
clearly lay down the principle that the court
is required to adopt a functional test vis-àvis the litigation and the litigant. What has
to be seen is whether there is any functional
similarity in the proceedings between one
court and another or whether there is some
sort of subterfuge on the part of a litigant. It
is this functional test that will determine
whether a litigant is indulging in forum
shopping or not."

14. Forum shopping has been
termed as disreputable practice by the
courts
and
has
no
sanction
and
paramountcy in law. In spite of this Court
condemning
the
practice
of
forum
shopping,
Respondent
2
filed
two
complaints i.e. a complaint under Section
156(3) CrPC before the Tis Hazari Court,
New Delhi on 6-6-2012 and a complaint
which was eventually registered as FIR No.
168 under Sections 406, 420, 120-B I.P.C.
before P.S. Bowbazar, Calcutta on 28-32013 i.e. one in Delhi and one complaint in
Kolkata. The complaint filed in Kolkata
was a reproduction of the complaint filed in
Delhi except with the change of place of
occurrence in order to create a jurisdiction.

************************

17. A two-Judge Bench of this
Court in K. Jayaram v. BDA [K. Jayaram
v. BDA, (2022) 12 SCC 815 : 2021 SCC
OnLine SC 1194] observed : (SCC para 14)

"14. It is necessary for us to state
here that in order to check multiplicity of
proceedings pertaining to the same subjectmatter and more importantly to stop the
menace of soliciting inconsistent orders
through
different
judicial
forums
by
suppressing material facts either by 14
remaining silent or by making misleading
statements in the pleadings in order to
escape the liability of making a false
statement, we are of the view that the
parties have to disclose the details of all
legal proceedings and litigations either past
or present concerning any part of the
subject matter of dispute which is within
their knowledge. In case, according to the
parties to the dispute, no legal proceedings
or court litigations were or are pending,
they have to mandatorily state so in their
pleadings in order to resolve the dispute
between the parties in accordance with
law."

23. In the present case also, the fact
that the applicant has approached this Court
earlier in its jurisdiction under section 482
Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge-sheet
dated
23.06.2019,
quashing
of
the
summoning order dated 27.11.2020 and
then filed another application under section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated
15.04.2022 passed by the Sessions Judge
concerned
in
a
Criminal
Revision
challenging the order dated 27.11.2020 and
in the meantime he had filed an application
in the second 482 Cr.P.C. petition with the
prayer to dismiss it as withdrawn with a
liberty to file a fresh petition by stating in
para 4 of the affidavit of it that it has
typographical and clerical errors for which
correction is not possible and even before it
had approached the Apex Court for
expediting the hearing of the first 482
Cr.P.C. petition which was allowed and
directions were issued for it. The applicant
impatently did not wait for the logical
conclusion of one petition filed by him
despite an order of the Apex Court in a
petition filed by the applicant himself but
filed an application for withdrawing it with
liberty to file a better petition and without
even awaiting for the disposal of the said
withdrawl application preferred a Criminal
780 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Revision before the Sessions Judge stating
in para 6 of a passing reference of the
pendency of a 482 Cr.P.C. petition before
this Court and then after dismissal of his
revision filed another 482 Cr.P.C. petition
although challenging the order of the
Sessions Judge but with a further prayer to
quash the proceeding of the trial court.

24.