# Umesh Kumar & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors. Opp. Parties

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 689
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-04-13
- **Case number:** Application u/s 482 No. 28762 of 2021
- **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/umesh-kumar-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-opp-parties-48293
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406 - Dowry
prohibition Act, 1961-Section 6-quashing
of entire criminal proceedings-demand of
Rs. 5 lac before the date of marriage, and
did not return the amount already spent in
rituals, ring ceremony-applicant filed false
affidavit
that
the
matter
has
been
compromised and ready to return Rs. 2
lacs-applicant tried to misguide the Court,
in fact, no compromise arrived between
the parties-applicants have misused the
process of law by filing application u/s
482 on false facts that the matter has
been compromised-cost of Rs. 1 lac is
imposed upon the applicants.(Para 1 to
28)

B. Apex 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.(Para 14 to 26)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 All. Umesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
689
passed in Criminal Revision NO. 72 of
2019 and further the summoning order
dated
7.1.2014
passed
against
the
applicant-accused Jatinder Pal Singh are
quashed.
----------
(2022)04ILR A689
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application u/s 482 No. 28762 of 2021

Umesh Kumar & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Jaysingh Yadav

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
A.G.A., Sri A. Kumar Srivastava

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 406 - Dowry
prohibition Act, 1961-Section 6-quashing
of entire criminal proceedings-demand of
Rs. 5 lac before the date of marriage, and
did not return the amount already spent in
rituals, ring ceremony-applicant filed false
affidavit
that
the
matter
has
been
compromised and ready to return Rs. 2
lacs-applicant tried to misguide the Court,
in fact, no compromise arrived between
the parties-applicants have misused the
process of law by filing application u/s
482 on false facts that the matter has
been compromised-cost of Rs. 1 lac is
imposed upon the applicants.(Para 1 to
28)

B. Apex 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.(Para 14 to 26)

The application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma (1995)
1 SCC 21

2. Buddhi Kota Subbarai (Dr.) Vs K. Parasaran
(1996) 5 SCC 530

3. Arunima Baruah Vs U.O.I. (2007) 6 SCC 120

4. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs S.B.I. (2007) 8 SCC
499

5. K.D Sharma Vs SAIL & ors. (2008) 12 SCC
481

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

7. Amar Singh Vs U.O.I. (2011) 7 SCC 69

8. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2012)
10 SCALE 330

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Shri Jay Singh Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicants, Shri
Rabindra Kumar Singh, learned Additional
Government Advocate representing the
State and Shri Anil Kumar Srivastava,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of
opposite party No. 2 and perused the record
of the case.

2. By means of this application under
Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (herein after referred to as
690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
"Cr.P.C.") the applicants have prayed for
quashing of the entire criminal proceeding
of complaint case No. 1749 of 2017
(Kamla Shankar Yadav Vs. Umesh Kumar
Yadav and others), under Section 406 IPC
and Section 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
police station Handia, district Allahabad,
pending in the court of Special Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad on the basis
of compromise arrived at between the
parties.

3. The emanation of facts giving rise to
the present application are that a complaint
was filed on 28.8.2017 by the complainant
Kamla Shanker Yadav arraigning therein as
many as four accused namely Umesh Kumar
Yadav, Mahesh Kumar Yadav, Gulab Devi
and Phula Devi inter alia with the allegations
that the marriage of her daughter namely Km.
Jyoti Yadav was fixed with applicant No. 1,
Umesh Kumar Yadav for 22.5.2017. Premarriage ceremonies, like Goad Bharai and
Bariksha were held, in which Rs. 100,000/-
was given to Mahesh Yadav, one gold ring
and and sum of Rs. 11,000/- were given to
Umesh Yadav. In addition thereof, money
and clothes were also given to the persons
attended the ceremonies. In the feast of Goad
Bharai, Rs. 75,000/- was spent. It is further
mentioned in the complaint that the
complainant has made the bookings of all
necessary things for which about Rs. 50,000/-
was given as advance. On 09.5.2017, when
the complainant went to the house of the
accused for fixing the date of Tilak
ceremony, they demanded Rs. 500,000/-
(rupees five lac) in cash, a motorcycle and a
gold chain. When the complainant along with
his family members and relations went to the
house of the accused on 10.5.2017, they
abused them and done undignified behaviour
with them and also refused for marriage,
which was fixed for 22.5.2017.

4. After examining the complainant
under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and witnesses
Dharmendra Kumar and Manish Kumar
under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the learned
Magistrate vide order dated 20.9.2018
summoned the applicants to face trial.

5. Prior to lodging of the instant
complaint, the complainant has also lodged
a first information report against the
accused-applicants at case crime No. 546 of
2017, under Sections 504, 506 IPC and 3⁄4
of Dowry Prohibition Act, police station
Handia, district Prayagraj almost on the
same set of facts.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied
with the order of the learned Magistrate
dated 20.9.2018 summoning the accusedapplicants, the applicants have challenged
the same by means of filing Application
U/S 482 No. 2224 of 2019, which was
disposed of by the coordinate Bench of this
Court vide order dated 21.1.2019. The
order reads as under:

"This Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed with the prayer to
quash further proceedings of complaint
case no. 1749 of 2017 (Kamla Shankar
Yadav Vs. Umesh Kumar Yadav and
others), under Section 406 IPC and Section
6 of Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Handia, district Allahabad pending in the
court of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Allahabad. Further prayer has been made
to stay the effect and operation of the
aforesaid order.

Heard
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants and learned A.G.A.

Submission of learned counsel for the
applicants is that summoning order was
passed in the matter for the same set of
facts for which FIR had already been
4 All. Umesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
691
lodged in which investigation is going on.
Thus summoning order is illegal.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer.

Having heard learned counsel for the
parties and keeping in view the provisions
provided under Section 210 Cr.P.C. the
application is disposed of at this stage itself
with the direction to the applicants to move
proper
application
before
the
Court
concerned within 15 days from today
ventilating all the facts, as has been raised
in this application. If such application is
moved, the court concerned is directed to
decide the same within a period of one
month thereafter. During the said period no
coercive action shall be taken against the
applicants.

With the aforesaid observations, the
application is disposed of."

7. Pursuant to the order of this Court
dated 21.1.2019, the applicant has moved
the application before the court concerned,
which is stated to be pending.

8. Now, the applicants have filed this
second application with the prayer that
entire criminal proceedings of complaint
case No. 1749 of 2017 be quashed on the
basis of compromise arrived at between
the parties. The applicant No. 1, Umesh
Kumar Yadav is the deponent of the
instant case.

9. On 03.03.2022, when this case was
taken up for the first time, a preliminary
objection was raised by Shri Anil Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the complainant that this is the
second application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. on false
facts as no compromise has taken place
between the parties and averments made in
this regard in the instant application are
totally false and baseless. The Court passed
the following order:

"On the matter being taken up, Shri
Anil Srivastava, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the opposite party No. 2
submits that the instant application has
been preferred by the applicants to quash
the entire criminal proceedings initiated
against
them
in
pursuance
of
a
compromise/settlement made between the
parties
concerned,
whereas,
no
compromise has arrived at between the
parties concerned. The averment in this
regard is wholly false and against the
evidence on record.

The aforesaid fact has not been
disputed by the learned counsel for the
applicants, who submits that the applicants
are willing to settle the dispute.

On the request of learned counsel for
the applicants, put up this case tomorrow
i.e. 04.3.2022 as fresh to seek proper
instructions in this regard."

10. On 04.3.2022, on the basis of
instructions,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants apprised the Court that the
applicants are ready to return the amount of
Rs. 200,000/- (rupees two lac), which the
complainant has incurred.

11. The Court passed the following
order on 04.3.2022:

"Pursuant to order dated 03.3.2022,
learned counsel for the applicants, upon
instructions from the applicants, apprised
the Court that the applicants are ready to
return the amount of Rs. 200,000/- (rupees
two lac only), which they have taken from
opposite party No. 2.

Upon the said statement, Shri Anil
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2
submits that in case the entire amount paid
by opposite party No. 2, the first informant
is returned by the applicants, he has no
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
objection if the Court quashes the entire
proceedings against the applicants.

Considering the aforesaid statement of
learned counsel for the applicants as well
as the undertakings tendered on behalf of
the applicants before this Court, the
applicants are directed to produce the bank
draft of Rs. 2,00,000/- in favour of Kamla
Shankar Yadav, opposite party No. 2 on the
next date fixed in the matter.

Put up this case as fresh for further
hearing on 15.3.2022."

12. On 15.3.2022, when the case was
taken up Shri Jay Singh Yadav, learned
counsel for the applicants has prayed for
one more opportunity to comply with the
order dated 04.3.2022. Learned counsel for
the applicants upon instructions from the
applicants further submitted that a draft of
Rs. 200,000/- (rupees two lac only) as
mentioned in the order dated 04.03.2022
shall be produced by the applicants on
28.3.2022 and the case was directed to be
listed on 28.3.2022.

13. After the order of this Court dated
03.3.2022, the applicants kept on playing
hide and seek with the court and tried to
obtain interim order from this Court by
hook or crook and when the applicants
failed to achieve their nefarious design, on
28.3.2022, when the case was taken up Shri
Jay Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that the applicants are
not responding to his call and the Court
may pass orders as it deems fit and proper
in the facts and circumstances of the case.

14. 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 applicants
have approached this Court with unclean
hands. By means of this application the
applicants have tried to misguide this Court
by stating that compromise has been
arrived at between the parties, but the fact
is that no compromise has been effected as
stated by the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the complainant. In spite of the
undertakings given by the learned counsel
for the applicants, on the basis of the
instructions of the applicants, it appears
that the applicants have no respect to the
orders of this Court.

15. Since, the applicants have not
approached this Court with clean hands and
filed false affidavit before this Court that
the
matter
has
been
compromised,
therefore, he does not deserve any
indulgence by this Court.

16. 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.

17. 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.
4 All. Umesh Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
693

18. In Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil
Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 21, Apex
Court held as under:

"To enable the courts to ward off
unjustified interference in their working,
those who indulge in immoral acts like
perjury,
prevarication
and
motivated
falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt
with, without which it would not be
possible for any court to administer justice
in the true sense and to the satisfaction of
those who approach it in the hope that
truth would ultimately prevail. People
would have faith in courts when they would
find that (truth alone triumphs) is an
achievable aim there; or (it is virtue which
ends in victory) is not only inscribed in
emblem but really happens in the portals of
courts"

19. In Buddhi Kota Subbarai (Dr.)
Vs. K. Parasaran, (1996) 5 SCC 530),
Apex Court held as under:

The course adopted by the applicant is
impermissible and his application is based
on misconception of law and facts. No
litigant has a right to unlimited drought on
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
misused as a licence to file misconceived or
frivolous petitions. After giving our careful
consideration to the submissions made at
the bar as well as those contained in the
memorandum of the application, we are of
the opinion that this application is
misconceived, untenable and has no merits
whatsoever. It is accordingly dismissed.

20. 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.

21. 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."

22. 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
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
with for contempt of Court for abusing the
process of the court.

23. 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.

24. The Court held as under:

"For many centuries, Indian society
cherished two basic values of life i.e.,
`Satya' (truth) and `Ahinsa' (non-violence).
Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma
Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these
values in their daily life. Truth constituted
an integral part of justice delivery system
which was in vogue in pre-independence
era and the people used to feel proud to tell
truth in the courts irrespective of the
consequences.
However,
postindependence period has seen drastic
changes
in
our
value
system.
The
materialism has over-shadowed the old
ethos and the quest for personal gain has
become so intense that those involved in
litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood,
misrepresentation
and
suppression
of
facts
in
the
court
proceedings. In last 40 years, a new creed
of litigants has cropped up. Those who
belong to this creed do not have any
respect for truth. They shamelessly resort
to falsehood and unethical means for
achieving their goals. In order to meet the
challenge posed by this new creed of
litigants, the courts have, from time to time,
evolved new rules and it is now well
established that a litigant, who attempts to
pollute the stream of justice or who touches
the pure fountain of justice with tainted
hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim
or final."

25. In Amar Singh Vs. Union of
India (2011)7 SCC 69, Supreme Court
held that Courts have, over the centuries,
frowned upon litigants who, with intent to
deceive and mislead the courts, initiated
proceedings without full disclosure of facts.
Courts held that such litigants have come
with "unclean hands" and are not entitled to
be heard on the merits of their case.

26. In Kishore Samrite Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2012 (10) SCALE 330,
The Supreme Court held as under:

"31. 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 Justice
Delivery System.

32. With the passage of time, it has
been realized 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
4 All. Damodar Das Vs. Ram Swaroop Ghura
695
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, unauthorized or unjust gain to
anyone as a result of abuse of the process
of the Court. One way to curb this tendency
is to impose realistic or punitive costs."

27. Having considered the factual
aspect of the case and the dictum of the
Supreme Court, I am of the considered
view that the applicants have misused the
process of law by filing application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. on false facts that the
matter has been compromised. 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.

28. In view of the verbose discussion,
the application is dismissed with costs,
which is quantified at Rs. 100,000/- (rupees
one lac ) to be deposited by the applicants
within 45 days with the Registrar General
of this Court, failing which the same shall
be recovered from the applicants as arrears
of land revenue. On depositing the said
amount, Rs. 50,000/- (rupees fifty thousand
only) shall be released in favour of the
complainant/opposite party No. 2 and
remaining
Rs.
50,000/-
(rupees
fifty
thousand only) shall be forwarded by the
Registrar General of this Court 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.

29. Office is directed to place a copy
of this order before the Registrar General of
this Court for compliance.
----------
(2022)04ILR A695
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.03.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 60201 of 2012

Damodar Das ...Petitioner
Versus
Ram Swaroop Ghura ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.N. Bhargava, Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Atul
Dayal, Sri Pushkar Srivastava, Sri Ravindra
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Pankaj Agarwal

A. Civil Law - Uttar Pradesh Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. 13
of 1972) - Release Application u/s
21(1)(a) - Title dispute - it does not lie
in the tenant's mouth to question the
right of the landlord to seek release of
the demised shop by importing a title
dispute into proceedings for eviction -
Held - there was no inter se dispute
between the co-sharers as to which shop
has fallen to whose share - rather the
stand was that the demised shop has
fallen to the share of the landlord in
terms of a family settlement- approach
of the Appellate Authority in holding
against the landlord with reference to
non-establishment of the factum of
partition, cannot be countenanced (Para
18)