# Union of Journalists & Ors v. State of

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 310
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-04-01
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Application No.7494 of 2009
- **Bench:** R.D.Khare
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/union-of-journalists-ors-v-state-of-41370
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482Quashing charge sheet-offence under
Section 363,366 IPC concealment of
material fact-amounts to abuse of the
process of court-contention of applicant
the opposite party no. 2 legally wedded
wife-married with her free will-found
false being minor-the applicant already
married with his first wife Smt. Urmilaheld-causing
obstruction
in
administration
of
justice
amountscriminal contempt-application rejected
with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Held: Para 9 & 10

In Afzal & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2326; and Mohan
Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh, (1998)6 SCC
686, the Apex Court held that a false and
a misleading statement deliberately and
wilfully
made
by
a
party
to
the
proceedings
to
obtain
a
favourable
order,
amounts
to
prejudice
for
interference with the due course of
judicial proceedings, and it will amount
to criminal contempt. The Court further
held that every party is under a legal
obligation to make truthful statement
before the Court, for the reason that
causing obstruction in the due course of
justice "undermines and obstructs the
very flow of the unsoiled stream of
justice, which has to be kept clear and
pure, and no one can be permitted to
take liberties with it by soiling its purity.

In view of above, this application is
dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Case Law Discussed:
(1995) SCC 242, 1996 SC 2687, 1997 SC
1236, 1970 SC 898, 1977 SC 781, (1991) 1
SCC 271, 2003 AIR SCW 14, 2004 SC 2421,
1996 SC 2326, (1998) 6 SCC 686.

## Text

310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

6. It is settled law that under the
provisions of Section 6-N of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act which is pari
materia to the provisions of Section 25 F,
a notice is required to be served upon the
workman and there must be a positive
evidence of offering compensation to the
workman. It is irrelevant is the workman
accepts
or
refuses
to
accept
the
compensation. This view has been well
settled by the Supreme Court in Bombay
Union of Journalists & Ors. Vs. State of
Bombay & Anr., 1964(8) FLR. 236, M/s.
National Iron and Steel Company Ltd.
& Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal &
Anr., AIR 1967 SC 1206 which is
equivalent to 1967(14) FLR 356, and in
the matter of Sain Steel Products Vs.
Naipal Singh & Ors., 2001(89)FLR 356.

7. In the present case, the Court
finds that from a reading of the evidence
and the statements of the parties and from
a perusal of the record of Writ Petition
No, 18214 of 1991, that the notice of
retrenchment
was
intimated
to
the
workman, and even though he may not
have signed the notice, there is sufficient
evidence that he was served because of
the writ petition that the workman had
filed through his union. The evidence on
record indicates that the compensation
was also offered and that the workman
received the compensation on 11th of July
1997. There is no allegation to indicate
that less compensation was paid. The
record suggests that the retrenchment
compensation was paid to the workman.

8. In the light of aforesaid, the Court
holds that the provision of 6-N of the
Industrial Dispute Act was fully compiled
with
by
the
employer
and
the
retrenchment notice on 22nd June 1991
was perfectly valid.

9. The workman's services had not
been terminated on 1st of July1994. He
services had already come to an end
pursuant to the retrenchment notice dated
22nd June, 1991. But the workman, on
accounts of an interim order of the High
Court dated 8th of July 1991, continued to
work. Upon the dismissal of the writ
petition, the retrenchment notice revived
automatically, on account of which the
services of the workman came to an end
automatically.

10. In my opinion, there was no
termination of the services of the
workman
on
1st
July
1994.
The
retrenchment had already been effected
earlier, but was kept in abeyance on
account
of
an
interim
order.
Consequently, the Court finds that the
reference with regard to the validity and
legality of the order of termination dated
1st July, 1994 was patently erroneous
since there was no termination on that
date.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned award cannot be sustained and
is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.04.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE R.D.KHARE, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.7494 of
2009

Naresh Kumar

...Applicant

Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Ajay Kumar Shukla
1 All] Naresh Kumar V. State of U.P. and another
311
Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri Pankaj Mishra
Sri Sandeep Kumar Dubey
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482Quashing charge sheet-offence under
Section 363,366 IPC concealment of
material fact-amounts to abuse of the
process of court-contention of applicant
the opposite party no. 2 legally wedded
wife-married with her free will-found
false being minor-the applicant already
married with his first wife Smt. Urmilaheld-causing
obstruction
in
administration
of
justice
amountscriminal contempt-application rejected
with cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Held: Para 9 & 10

In Afzal & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana &
Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2326; and Mohan
Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh, (1998)6 SCC
686, the Apex Court held that a false and
a misleading statement deliberately and
wilfully
made
by
a
party
to
the
proceedings
to
obtain
a
favourable
order,
amounts
to
prejudice
for
interference with the due course of
judicial proceedings, and it will amount
to criminal contempt. The Court further
held that every party is under a legal
obligation to make truthful statement
before the Court, for the reason that
causing obstruction in the due course of
justice "undermines and obstructs the
very flow of the unsoiled stream of
justice, which has to be kept clear and
pure, and no one can be permitted to
take liberties with it by soiling its purity.

In view of above, this application is
dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Case Law Discussed:
(1995) SCC 242, 1996 SC 2687, 1997 SC
1236, 1970 SC 898, 1977 SC 781, (1991) 1
SCC 271, 2003 AIR SCW 14, 2004 SC 2421,
1996 SC 2326, (1998) 6 SCC 686.

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.D. Khare, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned
counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The present 482, Cr. P.C.
application has been filed for quashing the
charge sheet no. 595 of 2008 dated
30.12.2008 submitted in case crime no,
789 of 2008 under Section 363, 366 IPC
pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Varanasi.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the deponent Mr. Neha,
being major, had married with the
applicant out of her own freewill, as such,
no office under the charged section is
made out against the applicant and the
criminal prosecution at the behest of
opposite party no, 2 is nothing but gross
misuse of process of Court.

4. Sri Pankaj Mishra, learned
counsel appearing for the opposite party
no.2 has stated that at the time when Neha
was abducted by the applicant, she was
minor aged about 17 1/2 years, therefore,
offence under he charged section is made
out against the applicant. He brought to
the notice of the Court that applicant is
already a married person and the
proceeding with his first wife, namely,
Smt. Urmila, is pending consideration
before the Mediation Centre of this Court
vide the order passed in criminal Misc.
application no. 720 of 2009 and date is
fixed for today, i.e. 1st April 2009 and
therefore 13th April 2009 is fixed before
this Court.

5. A bare perusal of the averments
made in this application discloses that no
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
such facts have been detailed in the
present application. Thus, it is apparent
that the applicant has concealed the
material facts before this Court in filing
the present application.

6. The judicial process should not
become an instrument of oppression or
abuse of a means in the process of the
Court to subvert justice. Easy access to
justice should not be misused as a licence
to
file
misconceived
and
frivolous
petition. (Vide Nooruddin Vs. Dr. K.L.
Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242; Dr. Budhi
Kota Subbarao Vs. K. Parasaran &
Ors. AIR 1996 SC 2687; and Ramniklal
N. Bhutta & Anr. Vs. State of
Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 1997 SC
1236.

7. In Tilokchand Motichand Vs.
H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898; State of
Haryana Vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd.,
AIR 1977 SC 781; and Sabia Khan &
Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (1999)1
SCC 271, the Hon'ble Apex Court held
that filing totally misconceived petition
amounts to abuse of the process of the
Court and such litigant is not required to
be
dealt
with
lightly,
as
petition
containing misleading and inaccurate
statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior
purpose amounts to abuse of the process
of the Court.

8. In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony
Bai and another, 2003 AIR SCW 14; and
S.J.S. Business Etnerprises(P) Ltd. Vs.
State of Bihar & Ors., AIR 2004 SC
2421, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that whenever the Court comes to the
conclusion that process of the Court is
being abused, the Court would be justified
in refusing to proceed further and refuse
relief to the party. This rule has been
evolved out of need of the Court to deter a
litigant from abusing the process of the
Court by deceiving it. However, the
suppressed fact must be material one in
the sense that had it not been suppressed,
it would have led to having a very
different outcome on the merit of the case.

9. In Afzal & Anr. Vs. State of
Haryana & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2326;
and Mohan Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh,
(1998)6 SCC 686, the Apex Court held
that a false and a misleading statement
deliberately and wilfully made by a party
to the proceedings to obtain a favourable
order,
amounts
to
prejudice
for
interference with the due course of
judicial proceedings, and it will amount to
criminal contempt. The Court further held
that every party is under a legal obligation
to make truthful statement before the
Court, for the reason that causing
obstruction in the due course of justice
"undermines and obstructs the very flow
of the unsoiled stream of justice, which
has to be kept clear and pure, and no one
can be permitted to take liberties with it
by soiling its purity.

10. In view of above, this
application is dismissed with cost of Rs.
10,000/-.

11. However, it is provided that if
the applicant appears before the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi within a
period of two weeks from today and
moves appropriate application, as per law,
then the same shall be considered and
decided, expeditiously, in accordance
with law, after hearing the parties
provided the applicant deposits the cost in
the court of C.J.M., Varanasi. The
amount, so deposited, shall be paid over
to the opposite party no. 2 after due
1 All] Adesh Kumar and others V. State of U.P. and another
313
verification. It the amount is not deposited
within the said period the Magistrate is
free to pass appropriate orders, in
accordance with law for realization of
cost.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAVINDRA SINGH, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No.33868 of
2008

Adesh Kumar and others
...Applicants

Versus
State of U.P. & another ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Amit Daga

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri M.K.Rajvanshi
Sri Manoj Kumar
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section-482Quashing of charge sheet-offence under
Section 420,467,468,471 IPC-on ground
civil suit on same allegation going onI.O.
During
investigation
collected
material-by which the Magistrate taken
cognizance
disclosing
prima
facie
commission
of
offence-call
for
no
interference-merely pendency of civil
suit-can not be ground for quashing the
charge sheet.

Held: Para 7

Considering the submission made by
learned counsel for the applicants, the
learned
A.G.A.,
learned
counsel
appearing on behalf of O.P.2 and from
the perusal of the record, it appears that
the material collected by the I.O. during
investigation, prima facie, discloses the
commission of the offence. The fabric of
the case is of purely criminal in nature,
therefore, on the basis of pendency of
the civil suit, the proceeding of this case
not be quashed because the filing of the
civil
suit
is
a
proper
remedy
for
cancelling the sale deed. The I.O. has not
committed any error in submitting the
charge sheet because there is sufficient
material to proceed further against the
applicants. The learned Magistrate has
also not committed any error in taking
the cognizance and summoning the
applicants to face the trial. So far as the
withdrawal of the money from the Bank
account of applicant nos. 1 and 2 is
concerned, it may be a ground of defence
which may be considered at the stage of
the trial. The application filed by the
applicants is having no substance, the
prayer for quashing the charge sheet
case crime no. 897 of 2008 under section
420,467,468 and 471 I.P.C. P.S. Jansath,
District Muzaffar Nagar and the criminal
proceedings arising out of charge sheet
pending in the court of learned A.C.J.M.
1st Muzaffarnagar vide criminal case no.
3821 of 2008 is refused.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ravindra Singh, J.)

1. This application has been filed by
the applicants Adesh Kumar, Vijay Singh,
Suneel and Shree Niwas with a prayer to
quash the charge sheet dated 14.8.2008 in
case crime no. 897 of 2008 P.S. Jansath,
District
Muzaffar
Nagar
and
the
proceedings arising out of the charge
sheet pending in the court of learned
Addition Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist,
Muzaffar Nagar in criminal case no.
3821/9 of 2008 under section 420,467,468
and 471 I.P.C.

2. The facts in brief, of this case are
that the FIR of this case has been lodged
by O.P.No. 2 Ram Pal on 14.9.2008 at
1.30 P.M. In respect of the alleged
incident dated 11.6.2008 alleging therein
that by playing a fraud after providing