# Vinod & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr - **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 488 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2022-07-07 - **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 13840 of 2022 - **Bench:** Sanjay Kumar Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48900 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 & 308-Challenge to-charge-sheet-In the instant case filed application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. without disclosing the fact of filing other two applications-applicants have not come with clean hands and tried to obtain order in their favour by playing fraud upon the Court-One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed-the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design-the judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice-the applicants have misused the process of law by filing successive applications before this Court suppressing the material facts and documents and misled the Court.(Para 1 to 7) The application is rejected. (E-6) ## Text 488 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Devi (supra) wherein it has specifically been held that delay in conclusion of the proceedings should not be the reason for rejection of an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., the order impugned is liable to be quashed. Moreover, trial Court appears to have adopted a hyper technical view in rejecting the application, however, what it appears to have ignored is the purpose for which the salutary provisions of Section 311 Cr.P.C. has been incorporated. It has failed to adhere to the well known adage that every trial is a voyage in which quest for truth is the goal. The trial court can summon any witness even if evidence of both sides is closed. What is required to be demonstrated is, evidence of such witness is essential to the just decision of the case. 16. Accordingly, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. The order of the learned trial Court dated 29.04.2022 is hereby quashed. 17. Court below is directed to fix a short date for the examination of the witnesses sought to be summoned by the applicant and on that date if the applicant fails to examine the witnesses, court below shall proceed in the matter without giving any further opportunity to the applicant to lead his evidence. Since the records indicate that the matter is oldest one, the trial Court is directed to take up the matter on day today basis and dispose of the trial as early as possible but not later than six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ---------- (2022)07ILR A488 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.07.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J. Application U/S 482 No. 13840 of 2022 Vinod & Ors. ...Applicants Versus State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Sri Pawan Kumar Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A., Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 323, 504, 506, 325 & 308-Challenge to-charge-sheet-In the instant case filed application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. without disclosing the fact of filing other two applications-applicants have not come with clean hands and tried to obtain order in their favour by playing fraud upon the Court-One, who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and no material facts should be concealed-the process of the court is being abused by unscrupulous litigants to achieve their nefarious design-the judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice-the applicants have misused the process of law by filing successive applications before this Court suppressing the material facts and documents and misled the Court.(Para 1 to 7) The application is rejected. (E-6) (Delivered by Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh, J.) 1- Heard Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the complainant/opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. fo 2- By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have made a prayer for quashing the impugned 7 All. Vinod & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. 489 charge-sheet dated 4.6.2020 and summoning order dated 16.9.2020 in Criminal Case No. 3297 of 2020 arising out of Case Crime No. 106 of 2020 (State Vs. Vinod & Others) under Sections 323, 504, 506, 325, 308 I.P.C. pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj. 3- At the out-set on the matter being taken up, learned counsel for the complainant / opposite party no. 2 raises preliminary objection that the applicants have not come with clean hands before this Court as the averment made in paragraph no.2 of the affidavit filed in support of this application "that this is the first application on behalf of the applicants before this Court" is totally incorrect and false. In support of his submission, he pointed out that earlier the applicants had preferred an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1982 of 2021 through Mr. Sumit Kumar Srivastava, advocate challenging the charge-sheet dated 04.06.2020, cognizance order dated 16.09.2020 as well as the entire proceedings of the aforesaid case no. 3297/2020. In the said application the applicant no-1(Vinod) was the deponent. The said application was disposed of vide order dated 29.1.2021 declining to quash the proceedings of the aforesaid case before the concerned court below with further direction that applicants shall appear before the court below within 30 days and for a period of 30 days interim protection was granted to the applicants. It is further pointed out that the said order dated 29.1.2021 has not been complied with by the applicants and thereafter they filed another application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 12919 of 2022 through Mr. S.K.Tiwari advocate challenging the non bailable warrant dated 03.01.2022, 09.03.2022 and 19.04.2022 issued against them, in which the applicant no-2 (Dinesh) is the deponent and the said application is still pending before this Court. During pendency of the aforesaid second application, the applicants have again preferred the instant third application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.through Mr. Pawan Kumar advocate, with the prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 4.6.2020 and summoning order dated 16.9.2020 as well as entire proceedings of aforesaid case without disclosing the fact of filing aforesaid two applications. 4- When learned counsel for the applicants was confronted with the aforesaid facts, he became speechless and did not dispute the aforesaid factual aspect of the matter. However, he submits at the Bar that the deponent of this case is maternal uncle of applicant no.1 Vinod and he did not inform him about the filing of aforesaid applications under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Nos. 1982 of 2021 and 12919 of 2022, therefore, he has not given reference of the same in the affidavit. He has fairly submits that since the deponent has concealed the material facts before him as well as before this Court, therefore he has no objection in imposing some cost upon the deponent. 5- Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examining the matter in its entirety, I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.2 that the applicants have not come with clean hands and tried to obtain order in their favour by playing fraud upon the Court. 6- Under the facts of the case, I am of the considered view that the applicants have no respect to the order of this Court. Furthermore, they have not approached this 490 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Court with clean hands and filed this application suppressing the material facts, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence by this Court. 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 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. The applicants have 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. 7- In view of the above, the application is rejected with costs, which is quantified at Rs.5,000/- (rupees five thousand only) to be deposited by the deponent (Rajesh s/o Late Baccha Lal, R/o village Pakri Siswa, police stationGhughuli District Maharajganj) within one month with the Registrar General of this Court, failing which the same shall be recovered from the deponent as arrears of land revenue. After deposition of aforesaid 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, 9 Micro Code 211002015, which shall be used for the welfare of the children ---------- (2022)07ILR A490 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2022 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J. Application U/S 482 No. 14443 of 2022 Naresh Kumar Valmiki ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Sri Arvind Kumar Singh Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 482 & 156(3)- Application u/s 156(3) was filed against the accused but the court concerned directed the same to be registered as a complaint-It cannot be that by treating an application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint, making an inquiry into it and then proceeding as per section 204 Cr.P.C., the complainant will not get an effective and efficacious remedy to ventilate his grievances-The power of a Magistrate or such court cannot be curtailed so as to place it in a tight compartment to exercise it in a particular direction and way only mechanically without being left to pass any other order as per his wisdom- Moreso,the Court differed with a view taken in the Case of Soni Devi in which the FIR to be ordered to be registered whereas special judge takes cognizance, the mode of taking cognizance will be as prescribed u/s 190 Cr.P.C., hence, the Special Judge, SC/ST (PA) Act is well within his powers to treat an application moved u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C.