Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Bindal, CJ., J.J. Munir, J.
Kushwaha Mahasabha and another - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1969 of 2022
Decided On : 24-01-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 188, 452, 307, 323, 336, 394, 504, 506, 427, 195, A and 420 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 156 (3) - Arms Act, 1959 – Section 30 – Constitution of India, 1950 - Remove unauthorized constructions - Concealed factum being a Government employee - Praying to take necessary action for removing unauthorized constructions - Command respondent authorities to get public money amount of compensation wrongly received by respondent - Held, If publication be with intent to deceive court or one made with an intention to defraud, same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice - It would, in any case, tend to interfere with same - Suppression of material facts from court of law, is actually playing fraud with court - Maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets attracted - Petitioner No. 2, who is a Government employee has not disclosed that he is serving as Assistant Teacher with Basic Education Board and further about various criminal cases pending between parties, hence, a petition sought to be filed in public interest by him cannot be entertained – Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
1. Present petition was filed by the petitioner claiming it to be in public interest, praying for the following reliefs:-
ii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding to the respondent authorities to get the public money amount of compensation wrongly received by the respondent Anupama recovered from her with appropriate interest and to initiate penal action against her for playing fraud with the authorities in the interest of justice within stipulated time fixed by this Hon’ble Court.
iii) Issue writ order or direction in the nature of writ of Ad interim mandamus commanding to the respondent District Magistrate to take appropriate action on the complaint dated 05.07.2022 preventing obstructions and encroachment over the public utility land of Mini Bye Pass Road situated in village Saidpur Hakins, District Bareilly within reasonable time to secure the ends of justice.”
2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the private respondents in November, 2022, copy thereof was given to the petitioners' counsel on November 28, 2022, but till date no rejoinder affidavit has been filed. An adjournment has been sought for filing the same, which we decline as sufficient time was available with the petitioners to file rejoinder affidavit specially keeping in view the pleadings made in the counter affidavit.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the private respondents, copy of the F.I.R. has been annexed, which was lodged by the private respondent No. 5 against petitioner No. 2 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 I.P.C., P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly. It is further pleaded in the counter affidavit that after investigation, charge-sheet was filed against petitioner no. 2 and the Court concerned has even taken cognizance and the trial is pending.
4. As a counter, petitioner No. 2 got one F.I.R. registered against respondent No. 5 under Sections 195, 195-A and 420 I.P.C., P.S. Baradari, District Bareilly in which respondent No. 5 was arrested, released on bail. In that also the charge-sheet has been filed. However, in a Criminal Misc. Application No. 31925 of 2022, filed by respondent No. 5 for quashing of the F.I.R. and further proceedings, an interim stay has been granted by this Court on October 10, 2022. The matter is still pending.
5. It is further pleaded that even wife of respondent No. 5 got one F.I.R. registered against petitioner No. 2 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 307, 323, 504, 506 and 427 I.P.C., P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, in which the charge-sheet has been submitted.
6. It is further pleaded that another F.I.R. was lodged by domestic helper of respondent No. 5 against petitioner No. 2 under Sections 147, 427, 323, 394 and 336 I.P.C., P.S. Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly, in which investigation is going on.
7. Thereafter, the petitioner no. 2 filed an application under Section 156 (3) against respondents No. 4 and 5 which was dismissed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, Court No. 1, Bareilly vide order dated September 24, 2021.
8. Respondent no. 5 also filed an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. against petitioner No. 2 and others before the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, Court no. 1, Bareilly, which was treated as a complaint case vide order dated March 28, 2022.
9. Still further, it is pleaded in the counter affidavit that petitioner No. 2 is working as Assistant Teacher under the Basic Education Board and is presently posted at Middle School (Poorv Madhyamik Vidyalaya), Sindhauli, District
A litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material fact....
Point of Law : Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under Section 181 of the IPC while furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to....
A litigant who approaches the court with unclean hands, by concealing material facts, is not entitled to any relief.
Point of Law : Appellants do no deserve any relief from this Court, as they are not only guilty of concealment of material facts from Court but had also indulged in forum shopping. They made efforts ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
