Allahabad High Court
Jyoti Saraswat vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 November, 2020
Bench: Ramesh Sinha, Samit Gopal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 1 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12368 of 2020 Petitioner :- Jyoti Saraswat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Birendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Shyamu Shukla holding brief of Sri Birendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Km. Meena, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
This petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 12.10.2018, registered as case crime no.725 of 2018, u/s 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, P.S. Farah, district Mathura.
It transpires from the record that an urgency application was moved by learned counsel for the petitioner Birendra Singh which was addressed to the Bench Secretary of Hon'ble Chief Justice Court and the Stamp Reporter on account of the said mention slip has reported the matter treating it to be urgent and sent the same in the fresh cause list to this Court.
It further transpires from the list of fresh cases that the petitioner had earlier moved Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.31976 of 2018 which was dismissed by coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.11.2018, the said order is quoted hereunder:-
"Heard Sri Madan Mohan Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned AGA and perused the impugned F.I.R, as well as material brought on record.
The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R, dated 12.10.2018 registered as Case Crime No. 725 of 2018, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, PS Bisrakh, District Gautam Budh Nagar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The allegations levelled against him are absolutely false, frivolous and baseless. From a perusal of the FIR, no offence is made out against the petitioner, hence, the same be quashed.
Learned A.G.A, opposed the prayer for quashing of the F.I.R, which discloses cognizable offence.
The Full Bench of this Court in Ajit Singh @ Muraha v. State of U.P. (2006 (56) ACC 433) reiterated the view taken by the earlier Full Bench in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (2000 Cr.L.J. 569) after considering the various decisions including State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (AIR 1992 SC 604) that there can be no interference with the investigation or order staying arrest unless cognizable offence is not ex-facie discernible from the allegations contained in the F.I.R. or there is any statutory restriction operating on the power of the Police to investigate a case.
From the perusal of the FIR, prima facie it cannot be said that no cognizable offence is made out. Hence, no ground exists for quashing of the F.I.R or staying the arrest of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed."
It further transpires from the list of fresh cases that the petitioner had also moved Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No.6498 of 2020 Smt. Jyoti Saraswat Vs. State of U.P which appears to have rejected by learned Single Judge of this Court on 8.10.2020, the said order is quoted here below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the applicant, the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant application has been moved seeking anticipatory bail in light of the apprehension of the arrest of the applicant in Case Crime No. 725 of 2018, under Sections 438, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Farah, District Mathura.
The Court finds no ground to entertain this petition which has been preferred in respect of a crime which was registered as far back as in 2018. This more so since the petition itself lays no foundation in respect of a clear and imminent apprehension of arrest. Although learned counsel for the applicant refers to the orders passed on Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application nos.3104 of 2020, 4417 of 2020 and 3613 of 2020, the Court notes that neither of those orders deal with the aspect of an apprehension of arrest which is a pre-requisite for invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C. Those orders also neither notice nor deal with the question of apprehension of arrest in respect of a crime which was registered in 2018.
Accordingly while this application stands rejected, this order shall not preclude the applicant from initiating such other proceedings as may be permissible in law."
Thereafter the present writ petition has now been again filed by the petitioner for the same cause of action though in para no.1 of the present writ petition it has been mentioned that this is the first writ petition. It is also apparent from the affidavit filed in support of the present petition that the deponent of the said affidavit is Rajesh Kumar Saraswat who is the husband of the petitioner which is mentioned in para no.1 of the affidavit. Though there is a passing reference in para no.6 of the present petition regarding filing of the anticipatory bail application but the same is not a full disclosure and this practice is of concealment of material facts and not coming to Court has been deprecated by the Apex Court in the case reported in (2013) 11 SCC 531 Bhaskar Lakshman Jadhav Vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society.
On a query being made regarding filing of the earlier writ petition and anticipatory bail application which have already been rejected on 19.11.2018 and 8.10.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner could not give satisfactory reply for again filing of the present writ petition. He tendered his unconditional apology for again filing the present petition on behalf of the petitioner and prays that the present petition be dismissed as not pressed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition be dismissed with an exemplary cost to discourage this practice which cause obstruction in speedy dispensation of justice and the same is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioner of the present case, namely, Jyoti Saraswat within one month from today in the court of C.J.M. concerned which shall be given to the Legal Service Cell of the District, failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
After passing of the aforesaid order imposing exemplary cost of Rs.one lac on the petitioner as has been referred above, learned counsel for the petitioner has repeatedly tendered his oral unconditional apology for again filing the present petition on behalf of the petitioner for the same cause of action and prays that cost imposed on petitioner be waived off but his prayer for the same is hereby rejected as this Court has come across on various occasions that the litigants who are approaching this Court when failed to get an interim relief from a particular Court then they adopt unethical means by filing repeated petitions for same cause of action before the Courts in order to obtain interim relief in their favour by changing counsels or the deponent of the petitions to escape the liability of perjury etc. on them in which precious time of the Court is wasted and when they are caught red-handed as in the instant case, then they tender apology before the Court to escape the liability for criminal contempt, perjury etc. However, as the petitioner is a lady and taking into account that she being a lady, the Court deems it proper to reduce the cost imposed on the petitioner to the tune of Rs.10,000/- and the same is reduced to the tune of Rs.10,000/- as an exemplary cost upon the petitioner with a caution to the petitioner as well as her counsel not to indulge in such practice again.
Office is directed to keep a copy of this order along with the record of Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.31976 of 2018.
The Registrar General of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the C.J.M. concerned for its compliance.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number (s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Samit Gopal, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.)
Order Date :- 11.11.2020/Gaurav