Fraud in legal proceedings invalidates judgments; parties must disclose material facts fully to maintain the integrity of the justice system.

JUDGMENT :

Rajnish Kumar, J.

1. In deference to the order dated 26.05.2025, the parties are present in person.

2. The respondent no.2 states that she does not want mediation in the matter because earlier the revisionist had filed Application under Section 4 82 No.1605/2023(Mohd.Faisal and Others versus State of U.P. and Another) challenging the charge sheet and the summoning order dated 06.11.2020 passed in Criminal Case arising out of Case Crime No.3690/2020, under Section 4 98-A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Sultanpur. One of the contention of learned counsel for the revisionist in that case was that there is possibility of compromise between the parties being matrimonial dispute, therefore, this Court had referred the matter for mediation. However, the mediation failed because the revisionist was not ready to settle the dispute in the said case and thereafter the revisionist is also not appearing in that application before the Court and enjoying the interim order granted by this court.

3. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 submits that without disclosing this fact, this revision has been filed challenging the order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as well as under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. on the application of the revisionist and the only contention as recorded in the order dated 26.05.2025 is that there is chance of settlement, therefore, the Court issued notices and granted interim protection on deposit of Rs.50,000/- within two weeks, which has been deposited. Thus, the submission is that this revision is liable to be dismissed merely on the ground of concealment playing fraud with the court for obtaining interim order. Even otherwise the submission is that nothing has been paid by the revisionist till date to the respondent no.2, even after allowing the interim maintenance by the family court, whereas the respondent no.2 is residing separately on account of conduct of the revisionist since January 2019. It has also been submitted that in this highly belated revision, no ground for condonation of delay could also be shown. Thus the application for condonation of delay alongwith revision is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

4. Sri Yogesh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the revisionist could not dispute the aforesaid submissions of learned counsel for the respondent no.2. However, he submits that inadvertently the fact of reference to the mediation and conciliation centre in the aforesaid application before this Court could not be disclosed and pointed out to this Court and it can not be said that any fraud has been played. He also could not show any payment made to the respondent no.2 till date except the deposit of Rs.20,000/-, out of which Rs.15,000/- was paid to the respondent no.2 in the aforesaid application under Section 4 82 Cr.P.C. No.1605/2023 and Rs.50,000/- in the present case.

5. In view of above, it is apparent that in this highly belated revision, in which office has reported a delay of 583 days in filing the revision, interim order has been obtained by the revisionist not only by material concealment of fact but playing fraud with the Court also because once the mediation had failed in a proceeding before this court, without disclosing the same and as to why the same has failed and as to how it is possible now, the only argument advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist as recorded in the order dated 26.05.2025 is that there are chances for settlement. But when the mediation had already failed before this court in another proceeding, the contention was misconceived and not tenable. I