Allahabad High Court
Dayashankar Gupta And 6 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 February, 2021
Author: Manju Rani Chauhan
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?A.F.R. Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2318 of 2021 Applicant :- Dayashankar Gupta And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjai Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. With Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3088 of 2021 Applicant :- Dayashnaker Kumar Gupta And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Surendra Prasad Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicants in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2318 of 2021, Mr. Surendra Prasad Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants in Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3088 of 2021 and Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A for the State in both the applications.
The first application U/S 482 No. 2318 of 2021 has been filed by Mr. Sanjai Kumar Singh, Advocate on behalf of the applicants, namely, Dayashanker Gupta, Subhawati Devi, Baijnath Prasad, Umesh Kumar Gupta, Sharda @ Sarita @ Guddi Gupta, Janki and Ishwar Chandra, for the following relief:
" I. Quash the entire proceedings including the impugned charge sheet No..34/2020 dated 29.01.2020 in Case No. 2629 of 2020 (State vs. Dayashankar and others) pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, arising out of the Case Crime No. 404 of 201, punishable offence under sections 49A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia as well as cognisance order dated 06.11.2020.
II. Stay the further criminal proceeding of the Case No. 2629 of 2020 (State vs. Dayashankar and others) pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, arising out of the Case Crime No. 404 of 201, punishable offence under sections 49A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Ballia, during the pendency of the present application under Section 42 Cr.P.C.
III. And/or may pass such other and further orders and direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The second application U/S 482 No. 3088 of 2021 has been filed by Mr. Surendra Prasad Yadav, Advocate on behalf the same applicants, namely, Dayashanker Gupta, Subhawati Devi, Baijnath Prasad, Umesh Kumar Gupta, Janki, Ishwar Chand and Sharda @ Guddi @ Sarita for the following relief:
" It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of criminal case arising out of case crime no. 0404 of 201 (State vs. Dayashanker Kumar Gupta and others), under sections 49-A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali District Ballia, pending before C.J.M. Ballia as well as quashed the impugned charge sheet 29.01.2020 submitted by I.O. in aforementioned case.
It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the further proceeding of criminal case arising out of case crime no. 0404 of 201 (state vs. Dayashnaker Kumar Gupta and others) under Sections 49A, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia pending before C.J.M. Ballia, during the pendency of present criminal misc. application, otherwise the applicants shall suffer an irreparably loss and injury.
And/or to pass any such other or further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case."
When the application U/S 482 No. 3088 of 2021 was taken up by this Bench on 8th February, 2021, the learned A.G.A. informed the Court that the same applicants have earlier filed Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 31956 of 2018 (Dayashanker Kumar Gupta & 6 Others Vs. State of U.P. , which is pending before this Court.
Today, on the matter being taken up, before addressing on the merits of both the aforesaid applications i.e. Application U/S 482 Nos. 2318 of 2021 and 3088 of 2021, Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned A.G.A. has raised preliminary objections qua the maintainability of both the applications by contending that the applicants have not approached this Court with clean hands. He has further contended that the same applicants, for the same relief, has filed Application U/S 482 No. 2318 of 2021 through Mr. Sanjai Kumar Singh, Advocate, which has been presented before this Court on 25th January, 2021 and just after eight days of filing of the said application, the same applicants through Advocate Mr. Surendra Prasad Yadav, Advocate, for the same relief, have filed Application U/S 482 No. 3088 of 2021, which has been presented before the Court on 2nd February, 2021 by concealing the filing of the first application i.e. Application U/S 482 No. 2318 of 2021. In the affidavit given by the applicants accompanying the subsequent application i.e. Application U/S 482 No. 3088 of 2021, there is no whisper of fling of first application for the same relief. Learned A.G.A.,therefore, submits that not only both the applications are liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost as also contempt proceedings are liable to be initiated against the applicants for filing false affidavit concealing the material fact.
In paragraph no.2 of the affidavit accompnaying Application U/S 482 No. 2318 of 2021, it has been stated as follows:
"That this is the first criminal misc. application under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. is being filed by the Applications before this Hon'ble Court......"
In paragraph no.2 of the affidavit accompnaying Application U/S 482 No. 3088 of 2021 also, it has been stated as follows:
"That this is the first criminal misc. application on behalf of the applicant before this Hon'ble court on the following facts and circumstances of the case. No other application is being filed or pending before this Hon'ble court."
From perusal of the affidavits accompanying both the aforesaid applications, this Court finds substance in the submissions made by Mr. Srivastava, learned A.G.A.
The Apex Court in the cases of Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1995) 3 SCC 757 and Rita Markandey Vs. Surjit Singh Arora, reported in (1996) 6 SCC 14, has observed that deliberate attempt to impede the administration of justice or interference or tending to interfere with or obstruct, or tend to obstruct the administration of justice, in any manner, amounts to criminal contempt.
In the cases of Afzal & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported (1996) 7 SCC 397 and Mohan Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh, reported in (1998) 6 SCC 686, the Apex Court has 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 or 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 the 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 the case of K.D. Sharma vs. SAIL, reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same law was reiterated in the case of G. Jayashree vs. Bhagwandas S. Patel reported in (2009) 3 SCC 141.
Before passing any adverse order against the applicants, it would be appropriate to afford an opportunity to the applicants to have their say in the matter.
Accordingly, let notices be issued to the applicants to show cause as to why this Court may not only dismiss both the aforesaid applications with exemplary cost but also not initiate criminal contempt proceedings against them for filing false affidavits and mentioning misleading statements therein deliberately. They may file their explanation by means of an affidavit on or before the next date. They shall also appear before this Court on the next date along with both the counsel.
Put up this matter on 25.02.2021 as fresh along with aforesaid application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 3088 of 2021.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Monika