IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the principle that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court and has inherent powers to prevent such abuse.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. This Cr.M.P. has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash entire criminal proceeding including the F.I.R. in connection with Sonari P.S. Case No.34 of 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 384, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the complainant-informant earlier filed Complaint Case No.2238 of 2020 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur when the matter was still pending the complainant-informant suppressing the material facts that he filed Complaint Case No.2238 of 2020, again filed another complaint being Complaint Case No.52 of 2022, para-1 to para-8 of which were word by word same as that of Complaint Case No.2238 of 2020 and just by replacing that the nature of offence punishable as under 406, 420, 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, 506 of the Indian Penal Code while in the earlier complaint was filed the nature of offence was mentioned as under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.

4. Mr. Pratik Sen- learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another reported in (2021) 5 SCC 435 paragraphs-13 and 26 of which read as under:-

13. It is also crucial to note that in the fresh complaint case instituted by him, Respondent 2 seems to have deliberately suppressed the material fact that a charge-sheet was already filed in relation to the same incident, against him and his wife, pursuant to NCR No. 160 of 2012 (Crime No. 283 of 2017) filed by Appellant 1's son. No reference to this charge-sheet is found in the private complaint, or in the statements under Section 200 CrPC filed by Respondent 2 and his wife. In fact, both the private complaint and the statement filed on behalf of his wife, merely state that the police officials have informed them that investigation is ongoing pursuant to their NCR No. 158 of 2012. The wife's statement additionally even states that no action has been taken so far by the police. It is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts. It is a matter of trite law, and yet bears repetition, that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand (Ram Dhan v. State of U.P. [Ram Dhan v. State of U.P., (2012) 5 SCC 536 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 237] ; K.D. Sharma v. SAIL [K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481] ).

26. It is a settled canon of law that this Court has inherent powers to prevent the abuse of its own processes, that this Court shall not suffer a litigant utilising the institution of justice for unjust means. Thus, it would be only proper for this Court to deny any relief to a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice by coming to it with his unclean hands. Similarly, a litigant pursuing frivolous and vexatious proceedings cannot claim unlimited right upon court time and public money to achieve his ends.” (Emphasis supplied)

and submits that since it is the litigant's bounden duty to make a full and true disclosure of facts and it is a matter of trite law that suppression of material facts before a court amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and shall be dealt with a heavy hand, hence, this is fit case where continuation of two cases for the same allegations by suppressing the material facts amounts to abuse of process of court, hence, the same be quashed.

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Sen relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Kapil Agarwal & Others vs. Sanjay Sharma & Others reported in (2021) 5 SCC 524 and submits that therein in the facts and circumstances of that case where the complainant first filed an application under Section 138 N.I. Act and subsequently filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. se