IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compliance with procedural rules regarding certified copies is mandatory for special leave petitions, reinforcing the integrity of the judicial process.

ORDER :

1. By the impugned judgment and order dated 5th August, 2021 (impugned order, hereafter), the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta dismissed an application (CRR No.507 of 2012) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr. PC, hereafter) preferred by the petitioners. The High Court was of the opinion that the respondent in the said application as the complainant having approached the jurisdictional Magistrate with a complaint under Section 200, Cr. P.C., he ought to be permitted to adduce evidence before charge is framed for arriving at a proper finding regarding the allegations.

2. This special leave petition dated 25th June, 2024 was presented on 11th July, 2024. Since the special leave petition was barred by time by 774 days, the petitioners applied for condonation of delay (I.A. No.158709 of 2024).

3. The petitioners also applied for exemption from filing the certified copy of the impugned order (I.A. No.158707 of 2024). It is stated in paragraph 3 thereof as under:

“3. That the petitioners have applied for the certified copy of the order dated 5.08.2021 (“impugned order”) passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in CRR No.507 of 2012. However, the petitioners are yet to receive the certified copy of the impugned order.”

4. The special leave petition was considered by us on 29th July, 2024. On that day, sensing that something was amiss, we made an order requiring the petitioners to file an application to bring on record document(s) in support of the statement made in paragraph 3, extracted supra.

5. An application (I.A. No.169588 of 2024) in terms of the order dated 29th July, 2024 has since been filed on 2nd August, 2024, which is listed today for consideration.

6. Perusal of the said application does not reveal that an application for certified copy of the impugned order had been made any time prior to presentation of the special leave petition. In fact, the first time such an application was made is on 29th July, 2024. Obviously, it is a post-order incident.

7. It is clear on the face of the records and it is also not disputed by Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, in his usual fairness, that the petitioners made an absolutely incorrect, nay false, statement in paragraph 3 of I.A. No.158707 of 2024 that the High Court had not furnished the certified copy of the impugned order despite they having applied for the same.

8. We would have been entirely justified in directing the Registry to take suitable steps for initiation of proceedings before the criminal court against the petitioners but having regard to the fervent prayer made by Mr. Bhatnagar that the petitioners may not entirely be at fault, we refrain from so directing.

9. However, having regard to the skullduggery that was sought to be adopted, we see no reason to condone the grave lapse on the part of the petitioners and hear them on the merits of the special leave petition. The special leave petition, along with I.A. No.158707 of 2024, I.A. No.158709 of 2024 and I.A. No. 169588 of 2024, stands dismissed.

10. Before parting, we wish to set our house in order.

11. It has been our joint experience on the Bench of this Court (howsoever short it is) that in the vast majority of matters arising from the high courts and placed before us for decision, the special leave petitions are accompanied by applications seeking exemption from filing certified copies of the judgments and orders impugned in such petitions. Invariably, so to say, the Court accepts the statements made in such applications believing what have been stated therein as correct. This mild approach of the Court has generated a sense of belief among litigants that they can get away scot-free even by making statements which are far from the truth. It is high time that some sense of discipline is instilled so that the Court is not taken for a ride.

12. Insofar as special leave petitions in criminal proceedings are concerned, Rule 3 of Orde