Litigants must approach the court with clean hands and disclose all material facts. Concealment of material facts and abuse of the court's process can result in imposition of exemplary costs and expedited trial proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Bajaj, J.

1. Applicants (Accused) had filed this application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the Complaint Case No. 144 of 2008; titled Patharu vs. Radhey Shyam and others, instituted by opposite party no. 2 for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506, 452, 427 IPC, Police Station Phoolpur, District Azamgarh as well as the summoning order dated 26th November, 2008 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh.

2. Learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has raised a preliminary objection relating to the maintainability of the petition, as the previous petition filed by the applicants-accused for the similar relief bearing Criminal Misc. Application No. 857 of 2009; titled Radhey Shyam and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and another, was dismissed by this Court on 29th January, 2009. In this regard, he has invited the attention of the Court to the said order appended with the counter affidavit filed by opposite party no. 2.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2/complainant that the accused have deliberately concealed their previous unsuccessful attempt before this Court, and again filed the similar petition seeking quashing of the complaint, and vide order dated 17th September, 2010 passed by this Court, further proceedings before the trial court were stayed.

4. At this stage, Sri Deepak Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicants fairly states that the applicants had never informed him about the earlier case filed by them through Criminal Misc. Application No. 857 of 2009, therefore, the fact relating to the filing of the earlier petition on behalf of the applicants is not mentioned in the petition. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel further states that he was not the counsel in the previous case, therefore, he too had no knowledge of the order dated 29.1.2009, whereby the petition seeking quashing of subject complaint was dismissed on merits.

5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the objection raised by the learned counsel for the complainant, it becomes clear that the issues raised in the petition have already been considered by this Court on merits and the claim of the applicants for quashing of the impugned criminal proceedings initiated by opposite party no. 2 through Complaint Case No. 144 of 2008; titled Patharu vs. Radhey Shyam and others, has already been dismissed on 29.1.2009.

6. The above background of the case clearly reveals dishonest conduct of the applicants who wilfully and deliberately concealed the filing of Criminal Misc. Application No. 857 of 2009 and the dismissal order dated 29.1.2009, while filing this petition again on the old cause of action.

7. By now, it is well settled law that a litigant who approaches the Court must come with clean hands, and if, the litigant plays mischief with the Court by concealing the material facts which have direct bearing on the case, such a conduct has to be condemned and punished in order to deter the litigants to not to toy with the process of law or the Courts. Further, a careful perusal of case file shows that the title Radhey Shyam and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and another contained in previous petition has been changed skillfully with the title Smt. Indra Devi and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and another, wherein initially Radhey Shyam was not impleaded as applicant, but subsequently, on 17.9.2010, his name was inserted by way of correction at serial no. 4 in the memo of parties.

8. At this juncture, it will be useful to refer the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishore Samrite vs. State of U.P. and other reported in (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases 398, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of suppression of material facts by a litigant made the following observations:-

29. Now, we shall deal with the question whether both or any of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 111/2011 and 125/2011 are guilty of suppre