# Smt. Ramendri v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 308
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-24
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No.5094 of 2021
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-ramendri-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48185
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

The courts of law are meant for imparting
justice between the parties. One who comes to
the court must come with clean hands and no
material facts should be concealed. Honesty,
fairness, purity of mind should be of the highest
order to approach the courts failing which the
litigant should be shown the exit door at the
earliest point of time.

Application dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022)03ILR A308
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No.5094 of 2021

Smt. Ramendri ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Awadh Sharma

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Virendra Singh

The courts of law are meant for imparting
justice between the parties. One who comes to
the court must come with clean hands and no
material facts should be concealed. Honesty,
fairness, purity of mind should be of the highest
order to approach the courts failing which the
litigant should be shown the exit door at the
earliest point of time.

Application dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Arunima Baruwa Vs U.O.I. (2007)6 SCC 120

2. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs S.B.I. (2007)8 SCC
449

3. Udyami Evam Khadhi Gram Udyog Welfare
Sanstha & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2008)1 SCC
560

4. K.D. Sharma Vs S.A.I.L. & ors. (2008)12 SCC
481

5. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010)2 SCC 114
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Awadh Sharma, learned
counsel for the applicant, Shri Ram Pal
Singh, learned Additional Government
Advocate-I assisted by Shri Prashant
Kumar
Singh,
learned
Brief
Holder
representing the State of U.P. and Shri
Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the
first informant, opposite party No. 2.

2. By means of this application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant has
prayed for quashing of entire proceedings
of Case No. 4692 of 2020 (State Vs.
Jitendra and others), arising out of Case
Crime No. 117 of 2020, under Section 498A, 304-B IPC and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act, police station Salempur, district
Bulandshahr, pending in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Bulandshahr.

3. A preliminary objection has been
raised by the learned counsel for the
opposite party No. 2 by pointing out that
the applicant has not approached this Court
with clean hand and has filed successive
applications by concealing the material
facts and documents.

4. In short compass, the facts giving
rise to the present application are that a first
information report was lodged by opposite
party No. 2, Deepak Kumar at case crime
No. 117 of 2020, under Sections 498-A,
304-B and 3⁄4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
police
station
Salempur,
district
Bulandshahr arraigning therein as many as
four accused namely Jitendra (husband),
Pawan (Jeth) Smt. Ramendri (mother-inlaw) and Satpal (father-in-law) of the
deceased
Anjali
inter
alia
with
the
allegations that marriage of his sister-Anjali
was solemnized with Jitendra on 16.2.2020
in which about 10-12 lakhs were spent.
Since, the in-laws of his sister were not
satisfied with the dowry, they used to
3 All. Smt. Ramendri Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
309
mentally torture his sister for bringing
additional dowry of Rs. 500,000/- or a Car.
The report further indicates that when the
complainant
visited
his
sister
at
Kiswagarhi, she narrated the ill treatment
meter to her by her in-law and thereafter
she was beaten and threatened of dire
consequences by her in-laws in case their
demand of additional dowry is not fulfilled.
Thereafter, his sister is living in her
maternal house (Maika). On 14.6.2020 at
about 10.00 PM, she received a call from
the side of her husband and thereafter she
went on depression and at about 1/1.30 AM
on 15.6.2020, she committed suicide.

5. After lodging of the FIR, the
applicant has approached this Court by
filing Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail
Application No. 5675 of 2020, which was
disposed of vide order dated 3.12.2020
directing the applicant to surrender before
the court below within three months and till
then, interim protection was granted to her.
However, when the order dated 3.12.2020
was in operation, the applicant has filed the
instant application under Section 482
Cr.P.C No. 5094 of 2021 on 05.2.2021 for
quashing the entire proceedings of the
aforesaid case concealing the aforesaid
order dated 03.12.2020, whereas Mr.
Awadh Sharma, who is counsel for the
applicant in the instant application was also
counsel in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory
Bail Application No. 5675 of 2020. When,
the case was taken up on 15.2.2022,
learned counsel for the applicant sought
adjournment on the ground that he could
not inform the opposite party No. 2. During
the pendency of this application, the
applicant also challenged the order of this
Court dated 3.12.2020 passed in Criminal
Misc. Application No. 5675 of 2020, before
the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5203 of 2021 on
28.6.2021, which was registered in diary at
serial No. 14233 of 2021. The said appeal
was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide
order
dated
29.7.2021
directing
the
appellant/applicant to surrender within two
days before the trial court in compliance of
the order of the High Court dated
03.12.2020. Thereafter, the regular bail
application of the applicant was directed to
be decided expeditiously by the trial court.

6. However, the applicant has chosen
not to comply with the order of the
Supreme Court dated 29.7.2021 as well as
this Court dated 03.12.2020. It appears that
during the pendency of this application,
non-bailable warrant was issued against the
applicant on 01.4.2021, the legality thereof
was challenged by the applicant by filing
another application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No. 1152 of 2020 through another
advocate Mr. Rama Shankar Mishra, who
was also one of the counsel in Criminal
Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.
5675 of 2020, concealing the order of the
High Court dated 03.12.2020 and that of
the Supreme Court dated 29.7.2021. The
said application was disposed of vide order
dated 21.2.2022 directing the applicant to
appear and surrender before the court
below within two weeks. The said order
dated 21.2.2022 also did not bring to the
notice of this Court by the learned counsel
for the applicant during his argument.

7. When learned counsel for the
applicant was confronted with the aforesaid
facts, he became speechless and did not
dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the
matter.

8. Having heard the submissions of
the learned counsel for the parties and
examining the matter in its entirety, I am of
the considered view that the applicant has
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no respect to the orders of the Supreme
Court as well as this Court. Furthermore, he
has not approached this Court with clean
hand and filed this application suppressing
the material facts in sheer disobedience of
the orders of Supreme Court as well as this
Court. Therefore, she does not deserve any
indulgence by this Court.

9. The courts of law are meant for
imparting justice between the parties. One,
who comes to the court, must come with
clean hands and no material facts should be
concealed. I am constrained to hold that
more often the process of the court is being
abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve
their nefarious design. I have no hesitation
in saying that a person, whose case is based
on falsehood, has no right to approach the
court. He/she can be summarily thrown out
at any stage of the litigation. The judicial
process cannot become an instrument of
oppression or abuse or a means in the
process of the Court to subvert justice, for
the reason that the Court exercises its
jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice.

10. Time and again the issue of abuse
of process of law has come up before the
Supreme Court as well as High Courts. The
Courts have, over the centuries, frowned
upon litigants, who, with intent to deceive
and
mislead
the
courts,
initiated
proceedings without full disclosure of facts.

11. In Arunima Baruah Vs. Union
of India (2007)6 SCC 120, Supreme
Court held that it is trite law that to
enable the Court to refuse to exercise its
discretionary
jurisdiction
suppression
must of material fact. Material fact would
mean
material
for
the
purpose
of
determination of the lis. It was further
held
that
a
person
invoking
the
discretionary jurisdiction of the court
cannot be allowed to approach it with a
pair of dirty hands.

12. In Prestige Lights Limited Vs.
State Bank of India (2007)8 SCC 449,
Apex Court held as under:

"It is well settled that a
prerogative remedy is not a matter of
course.
In
exercising
extraordinary
power, therefore, a Writ Court will
indeed bear in mind the conduct of the
party who is invoking such jurisdiction.
If the applicant does not disclose full
facts or suppresses relevant materials or
is otherwise guilty of misleading the
Court, the Court may dismiss the action
without adjudicating the matter. The
rule has been evolved in larger public
interest to deter unscrupulous litigants
from abusing the process of Court by
deceiving it. The very basis of the writ
jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true,
complete and correct facts. If the
material facts are not candidly stated or
are suppressed or are distorted, the very
functioning of the writ courts would
become impossible."

13.

In Udyami
Evan
Khadi
Gramodyog
Welfare
Sanstha
and
another Vs. State of U.P. and others,
(2008)1 SCC 560, the appellant-Sanstha
applied for loan for establishment of an
industry, which was sanctioned. The
appellant-Sanstha allegedly defaulted in
making payment. The recovery proceedings
were initiated against it, writ petitions were
filed questioning the legality thereof.
Public Interest Litigation was also filed.
However, fresh recovery proceedings were
initiated which were not the subject matter
of challenge in the writ petitions filed by
the appellants before the High Court. A
fresh writ petition was filed. The same has
3 All. Pappu Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
311
been dismissed by the High Court as nonmaintainable by holding that the petitioners
have suppressed the material facts, i.e.
filing of four writ petitions on the same
cause of action. The validity of that order
was challenged before the Apex Court. The
Apex Court dismissed the appeal with costs
of Rs. 50,000/-. The Court held as under:

"A writ remedy is equitable
one. Any person approaching a superior
court must come with a pair of clean
hands. It neither should suppress any
material fact, but also should not take
recourse to the legal proceedings over
and over again which amounts to abuse
of the process of law.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

For
the
reasons
aforementioned, there is no merit in this
appeal which is dismissed accordingly
with costs. Counsel's fee quantified at
Rs. 50,000/-"

14. In K.D Sharma Vs. Steel
Authority of India Limited and others,
(2008)12 SCC481, Supreme Court held that
no litigant can play "hide and seek" with the
courts or adopt "pick and choose". To hold a
writ of the court one should come with
candid facts and clean breast. Suppression or
concealment of material facts is forbidden 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.

15. Supreme Court in Dalip Singh Vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010)2
SCC
114
came
down
heavily
on
unscrupulous litigants by holding that 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.

16. Having considered the factual
aspect of the case and the dictum of the
Supreme Court, I am of the considered view
that the applicant has misused the process of
law by filing successive applications before
this Court suppressing the material facts and
documents and misled the Court. Honesty,
fairness, purity of mind should be of the
highest order to approach the court, failing
which the litigant should be shown the exit
door at the earliest point of time.

17. In view of the verbose discussion,
the application is rejected with costs, which is
quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five
thousand only) to be deposited by the
applicant within one month with the Registrar
General of this Court, failing which the same
shall be recovered from the applicant as
arrears of land revenue. After deposit of the
amount, the Registrar General shall forward
the same to the account of Rajkiya Bal Greh
Shishu, Allahabad being Account No.
3785336735, State Bank of India, Khuldabad
Branch,
Prayagraj,
IFSC
Code
SBI
N0002560, Micro Code 211002015, which
shall be used for the welfare of the children.
----------
(2022)03ILR A311
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No.10015 of 2009

Pappu ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties