# Smt. Indra Devi & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Anr. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 1259
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-13
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 29005 of 2010
- **Bench:** Manoj Baja
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-indra-devi-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-anr-opp-parties-50875
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 & 427
- Application u/s 482 - for quashing of
Complaint Case, instituted by opposite party no.
2 as well as summoning order - complaint Case
- alleged commission of offences punishable
u/section 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC -
Preliminary objection - a previous identical
petition having been dismissed on merits by the
Court - applicants deliberately concealed this
earlier dismissal while filing the present petition
- Court finds that, the applicants had engaged in
dishonest conduct by filing a second petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that had already been dismissed on merits in an
earlier proceeding - This repeat attempt, made
without disclosing the prior dismissal, caused an
unjustified delay of nearly 13 years in the trial,
adding hardship to the complainant - as a
result, the Court dismissed the application with
exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to
the complainant within one month - directing
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh to
ensure recovery - Additionally, the Court
ordered
that
the
trial
be
concluded
expeditiously, preferably within one year, by
avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
(Para - 9, 10, 11)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

## Text

2 All. Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1259
the offence was committed only on the
ground that the victim was a member of the
Scheduled
Caste
and
therefore,
the
conviction of the appellant-accused under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act is not sustainable."

24. Even in the matter of Ramawatar
(Supra) and Venkateshwaran (Supra)
discussed hereinabove with regard to civil
dispute, Court has also taken the same view
that in case offence has not been committed
on account of caste of victim, no case is
made out under the provisions of SC/ST,
Act.

25. From perusal of the judgments, it
is apparently clear that Apex Court has
taken consistent view that in case incident
took place due to caste of victim then
provisions of SC/ST Act would be
attracted, but the in the present case, it was
tenancy dispute having nothing to do with
the caste of opposite party no.2, therefore,
proceedings under the SC/ST Act is bad
and cannot not be permitted to continue.

26. Therefore, under such facts and
circumstances of the case as well as settled
provisions of law, criminal proceedings
initiated against the applicants are bad and
liable to be quashed.

27. Now at belated stage, it appears
that good sense prevailed in the mind of
opposite party no.2 and in turn, he decided
to file withdrawal application before the
trial Court to withdraw the complaint, but
even otherwise on merits too, no case is
made out against the applicants in light of
observations made hereinabove.

28. Accordingly, summoning order
dated
18.5.2019
as
well
as
entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 171 of
2017 (Jai Kumar Harijan vs. Kunal Shah
and others) renumbered as Sessions Case
No. 1506 of 2023 (State of U.P. vs. Kunal
Shah and others), under Sections 323, 504,
506, 427 IPC and Section 3(2) (va) of
SC/ST Act, pending in the court of Special
Judge
SC/ST, Allahabad
are
hereby
quashed.

Application succeeds and allowed.

29. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1259
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 29005 of 2010

Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Deepak Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Gorakh Yadav

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code,
1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506, 452 & 427
- Application u/s 482 - for quashing of
Complaint Case, instituted by opposite party no.
2 as well as summoning order - complaint Case
- alleged commission of offences punishable
u/section 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC -
Preliminary objection - a previous identical
petition having been dismissed on merits by the
Court - applicants deliberately concealed this
earlier dismissal while filing the present petition
- Court finds that, the applicants had engaged in
dishonest conduct by filing a second petition
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a complaint
1260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that had already been dismissed on merits in an
earlier proceeding - This repeat attempt, made
without disclosing the prior dismissal, caused an
unjustified delay of nearly 13 years in the trial,
adding hardship to the complainant - as a
result, the Court dismissed the application with
exemplary costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to
the complainant within one month - directing
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh to
ensure recovery - Additionally, the Court
ordered
that
the
trial
be
concluded
expeditiously, preferably within one year, by
avoiding unnecessary adjournments.
(Para - 9, 10, 11)

Application Dismissed. (E-11)

List of referred Cases: -

1. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) 2 SCC
114,

2. Amar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69,

3. St. of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal &
ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402],

4. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
reported in (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 398.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Applicants (Accused) had filed this
application under Section 482 Code of
Criminal Procedure for quashing of the
Complaint Case No. 144 of 2008; titled
Patharu vs. Radhey Shyam and others,
instituted by opposite party no. 2 for
alleged commission of offences punishable
under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 427
IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District
Azamgarh as well as the summoning order
dated 26th November, 2008 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 has raised a preliminary
objection relating to the maintainability of
the petition, as the previous petition filed
by the applicants-accused for the similar
relief bearing Criminal Misc. Application
No. 857 of 2009; titled Radhey Shyam and
5 others vs. State of U.P. and another, was
dismissed by this Court on 29th January,
2009. In this regard, he has invited the
attention of the Court to the said order
appended with the counter affidavit filed by
opposite party no. 2.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the opposite party no. 2/complainant
that
the
accused
have
deliberately
concealed
their
previous
unsuccessful
attempt before this Court, and again filed
the similar petition seeking quashing of the
complaint, and vide order dated 17th
September, 2010 passed by this Court,
further proceedings before the trial court
were stayed.

4. At this stage, Sri Deepak Singh
Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants
fairly states that the applicants had never
informed him about the earlier case filed by
them through Criminal Misc. Application
No. 857 of 2009, therefore, the fact relating
to the filing of the earlier petition on behalf
of the applicants is not mentioned in the
petition. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel further
states that he was not the counsel in the
previous case, therefore, he too had no
knowledge of the order dated 29.1.2009,
whereby the petition seeking quashing of
subject complaint was dismissed on merits.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel
for the parties and considering the
objection raised by the learned counsel for
the complainant, it becomes clear that the
issues raised in the petition have already
been considered by this Court on merits
and the claim of the applicants for quashing
of the impugned criminal proceedings
initiated by opposite party no. 2 through
2 All. Smt. Indra Devi & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Anr.
1261
Complaint Case No. 144 of 2008; titled
Patharu vs. Radhey Shyam and others, has
already been dismissed on 29.1.2009.

6. The above background of the case
clearly reveals dishonest conduct of the
applicants who wilfully and deliberately
concealed the filing of Criminal Misc.
Application No. 857 of 2009 and the
dismissal order dated 29.1.2009, while
filing this petition again on the old cause of
action.

7. By now, it is well settled law that a
litigant who approaches the Court must
come with clean hands, and if, the litigant
plays
mischief
with
the
Court
by
concealing the material facts which have
direct bearing on the case, such a conduct
has to be condemned and punished in order
to deter the litigants to not to toy with the
process of law or the Courts. Further, a
careful perusal of case file shows that the
title Radhey Shyam and 5 others vs. State
of U.P. and another contained in previous
petition has been changed skillfully with
the title Smt. Indra Devi and 5 others vs.
State of U.P. and another, wherein initially
Radhey Shyam was not impleaded as
applicant, but subsequently, on 17.9.2010,
his name was inserted by way of correction
at serial no. 4 in the memo of parties.

8. At this juncture, it will be useful to
refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P.
and other reported in (2013) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 398, wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court while dealing with the issue
of suppression of material facts by a litigant
made the following observations:-

29. Now, we shall deal with the
question whether both or any of the
petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos.
111/2011 and 125/2011 are guilty of
suppression
of
material
facts,
not
approaching the Court with clean hands,
and thereby abusing the process of the
Court. Before we dwell upon the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand, let us
refer to some case laws which would help us
in dealing with the present situation with
greater precision. The cases of abuse of the
process of court and such allied matters
have been arising before the Courts
consistently. This Court has had many
occasions where it dealt with the cases of
this kind and it has clearly stated the
principles that would govern the obligations
of a litigant while approaching the court for
redressal
of
any
grievance
and
the
consequences of abuse of the process of
court. We may recapitulate and state some of
the principles. It is difficult to state such
principles exhaustively and with such
accuracy that would uniformly apply to a
variety of cases. These are:

(i) Courts have, over the
centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with
intent to deceive and mislead the Courts,
initiated proceedings without full disclosure
of facts and came to the courts with 'unclean
hands'. Courts have held that such litigants
are neither entitled to be heard on the merits
of the case nor entitled to any relief.

(ii)
The
people,
who
approach the Court for relief on an ex parte
statement, are under a contract with the
court that they would state the whole case
fully and fairly to the court and where the
litigant has broken such faith, the discretion
of the court cannot be exercised in favour of
such a litigant.

(iii)
The
obligation
to
approach the Court with clean hands is an
absolute obligation and has repeatedly
been reiterated by this Court.

(iv) Quests for personal
gains have become so intense that those
1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
involved in litigation do not hesitate to take
shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and
suppress facts in the court proceedings.
Materialism, opportunism and malicious
intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of
litigative values for small gains.

(v) 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.

(vi) The Court must ensure
that its process is not abused and in order
to prevent abuse of the process the court, it
would be justified even in insisting on
furnishing of security and in cases of serious
abuse, the Court would be duty bound to
impose heavy costs.

(vii) Wherever a public interest
is invoked, the Court must examine the petition
carefully to ensure that there is genuine public
interest involved. The stream of justice should
not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous
litigants.

(vii) The Court, especially the
Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest
vigilance over the abuse of the process of court
and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should
not be granted "visa". Many societal pollutants
create new problems of unredressed grievances
and the Court should endure to take cases
where the justice of the lis well-justifies it.

[Refer : Dalip Singh v. State of U.P.
& Ors. (2010) 2 SCC 114; Amar Singh v.
Union of India & Ors. (2011) 7 SCC 69 and
State of Uttaranchal v Balwant Singh Chaufal
& Ors. (2010) 3 SCC 402]

x x x

x x x

33. 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)].

34. 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.
2 All. Ajay Garg & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1263

35. 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].

36. 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).

9. Thus, the above noticed facts and
circumstances of this case clearly establish
that the applicants have adopted unfair
means to make a repeat attempt to get the
relief from this Court, which earlier stood
rejected and this conduct of the applicants
have delayed the trial of complaint for a
long period of approximately 13 years. This
has added insult to the injury of the
complaint, who all these years has been
contesting this frivolous case, and is still
waiting to pursue the trial of the complaint
case, therefore, this Court finds it to be a fit
case for imposing exemplary costs upon the
applicants, in view of the decision in
Kishore Samrite's case (Supra).

10. Resultantly, the application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with a
costs of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid to the
complainant within a period of one month.
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh is
directed to ensure the recovery of cost and
payment to the complainant.

11. Further considering the delay in
commencement of the trial, it is ordered
that the trial be concluded expeditiously by
avoiding
unnecessary
adjournments,
preferably within a period of one year.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 1263
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 40122 of 2023
with
Application u/s 482 No. 44609 of 2023

Ajay Garg & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Mohammad Khalid, Sri Zain Abbas

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
G.A., Sri Jagannath Maurya

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 202, 202(1) & 482 -
Water Pollution (Prevention and Control )
Act, 1974 - Sections 25(5), 25, 26, 43, 44
& 49 - Air (Prevention and Control of
Pollution) Act, 1981 - Section 22 -
Application
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.
-
Quashing of entire criminal proceedings -
Environmental Law - inland surface Water
Pollution - Authorization to file complaint -
Procedural
compliance
under
Section
202