ORDER :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

Cav 2142/2019

Ms. Sabeena Naveed, learned counsel appears for the caveators.

Caveat stands discharged.

CM No.61/2020

For the reasons assigned in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the requirement of submission of certified copies of complaint and order dated 18-04-2019 is hereby dispensed with.

Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

CRM(M) 1/2020

1. The petitioner invokes the inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to assail the order dated 18.04.2019 passed by the Sub-Judge/Special Mobile Magistrate, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘trial Court’) under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner also seeks quashment of the complaint pending trial before the trial Court.

2. This petition has been opposed by Ms. Sabeena Naveed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents primarily on the ground that the petitioner is not entitled to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of this Court as he is guilty of suppression of material facts. She points out that against the order impugned, the petitioner before coming to this Court, had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the said appeal was dismissed on merits. She submits that the petitioner has neither challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, nor has he disclosed the aforesaid fact in this petition.

3. When confronted with the aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner reluctantly accepted the mistake and tendered unconditional apology. It was clearly pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner that, for suppression of such material facts from the Court, the petitioner can be penalized by imposing exemplary cost. Learned counsel for the petitioner initially made feeble attempt to justify the omission, but ultimately conceded that there was indeed suppression of material facts from this Court. He, however, attributed this omission to the communication gap between him and his client.

4. This Court has time and again noted that there is tendency in some of the litigants to suppress the material facts from the Court, at least, on the motion hearing date, so that the Court is persuaded to pass interim directions, adverse to the interest of the respondent(s). It is high time when this Court rises to the occasion and stem this rot before it becomes an epidemic. The jurisdiction of this Court whether under Article 226/227 of the Constitution or one vested in terms of Section 482 of Cr.P.C is an equitable and discretionary jurisdiction. It is, thus, incumbent that the party approaching the Court must come with clean hands and state all the facts truthfully before the Court without any concealment or suppression. If the Court finds that there has been deliberate omission to mention the material facts to mislead the Court, the petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim.

5. In the leading case of R.V. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner (1917) 1 KB 486 (CA), it has been held that it has been for many years the rule of the Court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the Court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts - facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it.

6. At this stage, it would be pertinent to refer to the observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of K.D. Sharma vs Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (2008) 12 SCC 481. Paragraph 33, 34, 35 are relevant and reproduced hereunder:

33. The learned counsel for SAIL is also right in urging that the appellant has not approached the Court with clean hands by disclosing all facts. An impression is sought to be created as if no notice was ever given to him nor he was informed about the consideration of cases of elig