Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suman Devi And Another vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 August, 2013
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Criminal Misc. No. M-23065 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-23065 of 2013
Date of decision: 12.08.2013.
Suman Devi and another ..Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Dheeraj Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Premjit Singh Hundal, AAG, Punjab
for respondents No.1 to 3 - State.
None for respondents No.4, 5, 7 and 8.
Mr. Naveen Batra, Advocate
for respondent No.6.
Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to respondents No.2 and 3 not to harass the petitioners at the instance of respondents No.4 to 8.
The case of the petitioners in the present petition is that petitioner No.1 is about 17 years and 11 months of age as her date of birth is 05.08.1996 and the date of birth of petitioner No.2 is 15.02.1992 and he was 21 years and 5 months of age at the time of filing this petition.
By recording the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, notice of motion was issued. Rani Neetu On perusal of documents on record, it appears that 2013.08.22 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-23065 of 2013 2 counsel has misrepresented before this Court by mentioning the wrong age of the petitioners whereas the age of petitioner No.1 cannot be 17 years and 11 months on the basis of matriculation certificate. Similarly, age of petitioner No.2 has also been wrongly mentioned just to misguide the Court.
Just by believing the counsel for the petitioners, notice of motion was issued. On appearance of respondent No.6, it has come to the notice of the Court that both the petitioners are not eligible for marriage as the age of girl is less than even 17 years and petitioner No.2 is also not of 21 years of age.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments of Delhi High Court in Sh. Jitender Kumar Sharma vs. State & Another, 2010 (4) RCR (Criminal) 20, Rukshana & Anr. vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 542, Manish Singh vs. State Govt. of NCT & Ors., 2006(1) RCR (Criminal) 653 as well as judgment of this Court in Preeti Sharma and another vs. State of Punjab and others, Criminal Misc. No. M-27147 of 2010 decided on 08.11.2010 and judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Seema Devi alias Simaran Kaur vs. State of H.P., 1998(1) RCR (Criminal) 697 in support of his contentions. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that an application was moved subsequently.
In the petition, not only the wrong facts have been mentioned but every effort has also been made to mislead the Court by mentioning wrong year of birth.
Rani Neetu2013.08.22 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-23065 of 2013 3
Hon'ble the Supreme Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance - State of Haryana v. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. (1977) 2 SCC 431, Vijay Kumar Kathuria v. State of Haryana (1983) 3 SCC 333, Welcome Hotel and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc. (1983) 4 SCC 575, G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by LRs. and another v. Government of Karnataka and another (1991) 3 SCC 261, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by LRs. and others (1994) 1 SCC 1, Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane and others (1996) 4 SCC 297, Union of India and others v. Muneesh Suneja (2001) 3 SCC 92, Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India (2007) 8 SCC 449, Sunil Poddar and others v. Union Bank of India (2008) 2 SCC 326, K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others (2008) 12 SCC 481, G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others (2009) 3 SCC 141 and C.A. No. 5239/2002 - Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 3.12.2009.
In Jai Bhagwan vs. Haryana State Electricity Board, CWP No.15448 of 1993 decided on 21.09.1994, a Division Bench of this Court laid down the principle in the following words: -
"It is the duty of the party seeking relied under Article 226 or 136 of the Constitution to make full and candid disclosure of all the facts and leave it Rani Neetu 2013.08.22 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-23065 of 2013 4 to the Court to determine whether relief deserves to be given to the petitioner or not. The petitioner is also under a duty to make all efforts to find out full facts of the case before filing the petition and he cannot be heard to say that he is not aware of the facts concerning him. The petitioner has to demonstrate his bona fides before seeking relief from the Court in exercise of its equitable jurisdiction. It is not for the petitioner to decide as to which of the facts are relevant and which are not relevant. The petitioner cannot become a judge on the question of relevancy of facts. Non- disclosure of all the facts in a candid and straight forward manner will necessarily warrant dismissal of a petition......."
"We may further add that a petitioner will not be entitled to be heard on the merits of the case where he is found guilty of concealment of facts or of making mis-statement before the Court only on the ground that no stay order has been passed by the Court. It is to be remembered that the Court considers a petition with the assumption that the averments made in the petition are true and correct. In a given situation, the Court may finally decide a petition ex-parte where the non-petitioner Rani Neetu 2013.08.22 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-23065 of 2013 5 does not appear despite service of notice. If a party suppressed facts from the Court, such ex- parte decision may be rendered on the basis of incorrect and incomplete facts. Therefore, it is no answer to the charge of suppression of facts or mis-statement of facts before the Court to say that no interim relief has been given to the petitioner or that he has not derived any benefit. In our opinion, the very issuance of a notice on a petition is a benefit derived by the petitioner, if subsequently it is found that the petitioner has misled the Court or persuaded it in issuing notice be concealment of true facts of the case there will be ample justification for dismissing the petition."
In Req. vs. Gerland, (1870) 39 LJ QB 86, it was held: -
"Where a process is ex-debito justitiae the Court would refuse to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant where the application is found to be wanting in bona fides."
Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground.
Dismissed as such.
12.08.2013 (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
neetu JUDGE
Rani Neetu
2013.08.22 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh