In Vinod Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Bihar through the Director General of Police, Saran & Ors. (2025), Justice Arun Kumar Jha of Patna High Court passed a 5-page long judgement dated October 15, 2025. The judgement concluded:''I am of the considered opinion that the concealment/suppression of vital facts makes the petition of the petitioner liable to be dismissed but with substantive cost and reliance could be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager, Haryana Roadways vs. Jai Bhagwan and Anr., (2008) 4 SCC 127 wherein for suppression of facts, exemplary cost of Rs.1,00,000/- was imposed. 10. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the present petition is dismissed with cost. The cost is quantified at Rs.50,000/-, which shall be paid by the petitioner in the coffer of Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four weeks from today. If not paid, the Registry is directed to recover the same by taking appropriate action against the petitioner.''
The other seven Respondents were: Inspector General of Police, Saran, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Saran, S.S.P., Saran, Rural SP, Saran Bihar, DSP, Chhapra,Saran, Officer In Charge, Chhapra, Saran and Awadh Bihari Pandey
The writ petition was filed for quashing the FIR in connection with a Chapra Town P.S. case of 2023 dated June 18, 2023 registered under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
The judgement recorded that from perusal of record, it appears that by order dated June 24, 2025, on the prayer of counsel for the petitioner, the Coordinate Bench ordered that till further orders, the petitioner would not be arrested in connection with Chhapra Town P.S. case of 2023. Awadh Bihari Pandey, the informant of Chapra Town P.S. case of 2023 was made party as Respondent no.8 and he appeared in this case and filed counter affidavit as well as one I.A.No.01 of 2025 for vacating the interim order of stay dated June 24, 2025 whereby arrest of the petitioner was stayed till further orders.
It was submitted on record by Awadh Bihari Pandey, the Respondent no. 8 that the petitioner had not approached the High Court with clean hands and earlier the petitioner had moved to the High Court by filing Cr. Misc. No.67248/2023 seeking bail. By order dated December 13, 2023, the provisional bail was granted to the petitioner with direction to pay Rs.32.10 lacs to the informant within four months. But due to default of the petitioner, even after repeated extensions, provisional bail granted to the petitioner, vide order dated December 13, 2023, was cancelled and the petitioner was directed to surrender before the learned court below immediately vide order dated May 9, 2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.67248/2023. But the petitioner concealed this fact and filed Cr.W.J.C.No.1304/2025 and got a favourable order staying his arrest. The same was in complete violation of the orders of the High Court dated May 9, 2025 passed in Cr.Misc. No.67248 of 2023.
The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that there was no requirement while filing the writ petition for mentioning the fact about dismissal of bail petition or orders passed by the Coordinate Bench about grant of provisional bail. The counsel, however, tenders apology for inconvenience caused to the High Court.
Justice Jha observed: ''When the petitioner approached this Court seeking quashing of the FIR and prayed for stay of his arrest, the petitioner was duty bound to apprise this Court regarding all the facts in connection with the FIR for which quashing has been sought. A bare reading of two orders of this Court dated 09.05.2025 and 24.06.2025 passed in Cr. Misc. No.67248 of 2023 and Cr.W.J.C.No.1304 of 2025, respectively, makes it abundantly clear that as soon as the petitioner did not get any favourable order in Cr. Misc. No.67248 of 2023, he moved before this Court by filing the present writ petition concealing this important fact about dismissal of his bail petition and other directions of the Coordinate Bench in Cr. Misc. No. 67248 of 2023. The act of the petitioner in not mentioning the facts about Cr. Misc. No.67248 of 2023 amounts to active concealment and playing hide and seek with this Court. The petitioner is guilty of not approaching the Court with clean hands and playing fraud upon it.''
The High Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853, wherein, the observation of the Chief Justice Edward Coke of England made about three centuries ago was quoted. It reads: “fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal” and held that the courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties.
Drawing in this decision, Justice Jha observed: One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands and finally their Lordships held that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment