Litigants invoking extraordinary judicial jurisdiction must provide full disclosure of all prior or pending legal proceedings regarding the same subject matter. Failure to disclose such material facts, particularly parallel revisions or petitions, constitutes suppression and abuse of process, rendering the petition liable for summary dismissal.

JUDGMENT :

BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

1. The present application has been filed seeking quashing of the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1914 of 2023, Ghanshyam Soni @ Pappu Vs. Lallu Prasad Soni an others , under Section 420 IPC, Police Station Amethi, District Amethi and the summoning order dated 08.022024 including the bailable warrant dated 03.08.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No.20, Sultanpur.

2. Sri Prafulla Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that earlier the applicant consulted Sri J.N. Mishra, Advocate, for filing a criminal revision against the summoning order dated 08.02.2024, but on being advised to file an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Court against the summoning order, the applicant orally instructed her counsel not to file the criminal revision before the Sessions Court, but despite the aforesaid instruction, Criminal Revision No.91 of 2024 was filed by the Advocate without informing the applicant, in which no interim order was passed. He has further submitted that on 20.09.2024, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed before this Court challenging the orders dated 08.02.2024 and 03.08.2024 and this Court stayed further proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No.1914 of 2023, pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.20, Sultanpur vide order dated 26.09.2024.

3. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that instruction given by the client to his/her Advocate may be oral or written is binding on the counsel, but in the present case in spite of instruction given by the applicant, the counsel had filed the criminal revision before the Sessions Court without informing to the applicant. It is further submitted that applicant on coming to know about the pendency of the criminal revision being filed in her name through the counter affidavit filed on the behalf of opposite party no.2, which was served on her on 06.11.2024, the applicant being a bona fide litigant, moved an application for withdrawal of the application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to pursue the remedy of criminal revision on 20.11.2024. However, this Court vacated the interim order granted without deciding the application for withdrawal of the application.

4. Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that it is a settled law that a client/litigant cannot at all be made to suffer for the mistake committed by his/her counsel. He has also submitted that the withdrawal application dated 20.11.2024 filed by the applicant is still pending adjudication before this Court and it deserves to be allowed by permitting the applicant to pursue the remedy of criminal revision.

Legal submissions of counsel for the applicant:

5. The contention of counsel for opposite party no.2 that the declaration in terms of Rule 3(5) Chapter XVIII, Part-III of the Allahabad High Court Rules, have not been made by the applicant and there has been material concealment by her in not declaring the pendency of the criminal revision falls on its face as the applicant herself got to know about the pendency of the criminal revision only when she was served the counter affidavit by opposite party no.2 on 06.11.2024 and immediately thereafter the applicant moved an application for withdrawal of the application on 20.11.2024. Therefore, the