IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that litigants must act fairly and not abuse the process of the court by concealing material facts or filing repetitive petitions after the dismissal of previous petitions with the same prayer.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri. Prashant Chandra Senior Advocate assisted by Sri. Anshuman Singh Advocate, the learned Counsel for the applicants, Sri. Amit Kumar Dwivedi, the learned A.G.A. and Sri. Avinash Chandra, the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicants have sought quashing of F.I.R. No. 39 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 427, 323, 504, 506 and 34 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Barabanki.

3. The learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 raised a preliminary objection that the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable for quashing of the F.I.R. in view of the law laid down by a Bench consisting of seven Hon’ble Judges of this Court in Ramlal Yadava versus State of U.P. (1989) 1 MWN (Cr.) 198 All (FB).

4. Sri. Prashant Chandra, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant submitted that a First Information Report can be questioned and set aside in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which preserve the inherent powers of the High Court’s to prevent abuse of the process of court. The availability of extraordinary remedy of Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not oust the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

5. The learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 further submitted that the applicants not only have a remedy of filing a Writ Petition available for the relief sought, rather they have in fact already availed that remedy by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 642 of 2024, which was dismissed by means of an order dated 30.01.2024 which reads as follows: -

“Sri. Pawan Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioners, at the outset prays that he has been instructed by his client to not press this petition and the same may be dismissed as such.

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed as not pressed.”

6. The learned A.G.A. and the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 also submitted that the applicants have not disclosed the fact of filing and dismissal of the Writ Petition which was filed by them for the same relief and they are guilty of concealment of the aforesaid material fact.

7. The learned A.G.A. has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1399.

8. The learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 2 relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarguja Transport Service v. S.T.A.T., (1987) 1 SCC 5.

9. After the aforesaid preliminary objection had been raised, the learned Counsel for the applicants filed a supplementary affidavit stating that the applicant no. 1 had met Sri. K. K. Yadav Advocate on 22.01.2024, had told him that there was a grave urgency for filing a petition as he and his brother (the applicant no. 2) could be arrested any moment, and he had handed over the papers of the case to the Advocate, who had told him that the preparation of the case will take some time. In the meanwhile, the Advocate got an affidavit of the applicant no. 1 prepared and got some blank papers signed by him, although the applicant no. 1 had told the Advocate that he had come to seek opinion only and he had not come prepared to get the case filed and he was not even carrying any fee and expenses. The applicant no. 2 had independently approached Sri. Fazal Haider Zaidi, Advocate for the same purpose on 19.01.2024, who had called both the applicants on the following day. Both the applicants met Sri. Zaidi Advocate on 23.01.2024, who got an affidavit of the applicant no. 1 prepared in the affidavit centre of this Court and told the applicants to contact the Advocate after a couple of days and the petition would be prepared in the meantime. The applicant no. 1 met Sri. Zaidi Advocate on 25.01.2024, on which date the petition was prepared, it was signed on