Suppression of material facts by a litigant constitutes abuse of process, justifying the quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent harassment.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

Heard the parties.

2. Though the opposite party No.2 has put in her appearance through a lawyer but no one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls.

3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the First Information Report in connection with Mandu (West Bokaro O.P.) P.S. Case No.145 of 2020 registered under Sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act of the court of A.C.J.M., Ramgarh.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the investigation of the case is still going on and charge-sheet has not yet been submitted in this case.

5. The allegation against the petitioners is that the petitioners being the husband and relatives of the husband of the informant, treated the informant with cruelty in connection with demand of dowry and also demanded dowry.

6. Drawing attention of this Court towards the copy of the certified copy of the complaint filed by the informant against the petitioner Nos.1 to 3, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the informant has filed Complaint Case No.613 of 2019 for the self-same allegation which has been made in the present F.I.R. and drawing attention of this Court towards the order dated 10.06.2020 passed in Cr.M.P. No.975 of 2020, learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that since a co-ordinate Bench of this Court stayed the further proceedings in connection with the said case, hence, suppressing the material fact that for the self-same allegation, a complaint has already been instituted; without clean hands, this case has been instituted. It is then submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is false. It is further submitted that the informant has suppressed the filing of earlier case. Therefore, it is submitted that since the informant has not approached the court with clean hands, hence, the conduct of the informant amounts to abuse of process of law. It is also submitted that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioners are considered to be true in their entirety still none of the offence is made out against the petitioners. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer of the petitioners, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P., be allowed.

7. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently oppose the prayer of the petitioners made in the instant Cr.M.P. and submits that the allegations made are sufficient to constitute each of the offences in respect of which the F.I.R. has been registered. Hence, at this nascent stage, the entire criminal proceedings ought not be quashed. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.

8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that this Court in the case ofAjay Sagar @ Ajay Prem Sagar & Another vs. The State of Jharkhand & Another passed in Cr.M.P. No.3781 of 2022 dated 28th June, 2023, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case ofKrishna 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