Dhooram Chaudhary vs Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav And 2 ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 5356 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 58
 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6852 of 2015
 
Petitioner :- Dhooram Chaudhary
 
Respondent :- Mr. Mulayam Singh Yadav And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aseem Kumar Rai
 
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

The applicant has approached this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, inter alia, seeking a direction to set aside the order dated 22 August 2015 passed by the second respondent, Sessions Judge, Mahoba in Criminal Revision being Revision No. 46/15; a further direction has been sought directing the "appropriate authorities to take appropriate action against the first respondent".

The applicant claims to be a "public spirited social worker". The first respondent is President of the ruling party of the State, a Member of the Parliament, former Chief Minister of the State and Former Defence Minister of India. The Judicial Magistrate at Kulpahar, District Mahoba had suo moto taken cognizance of certain comments, purportedly, made by the first respondent against the modesty of women thus, summoning the first respondent under Sections 504, 505, 509, 116 IPC read with Section 3 and 4 of the Indian Representation of Women Prohibition Act 1996 by order dated 21 August 2015, aggrieved, the first respondent preferred a revision under Section 397 CrPC against the summoning order. The learned Revisional Court/Sessions Judge, Mahoba vide order dated 22 August 2015 stayed the order summoning the first respondent. The order is being assailed in the present petition.

The applicant claims to be a public spirited social worker, however, the learned Advocate General would inform that the applicant is a former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) belonging to the opposition party, the petition at this behest under Article 227 of the Constitution would not be maintainable, rather, the petition is a gross misuse of the process of Court, the Criminal Revision against the summoning order is pending, therefore, there was no occasion for a stranger to have approached this Court.

Learned counsel for the applicant when confronted with the credentials of the applicant i.e. being a former MLA belonging to a rival political party, the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that he would like to withdraw the petition.

The learned Advocate General would submit that the petition being gross misuse of the process of the Court should be dismissed with heavy cost.

The record would reveal that the learned Judicial Magistrate had taken suo moto cognizance under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C of the offence mentioned herein above, thereafter, it appears that a miscellaneous case was also instituted against the first respondent and one Bhagirath Yadav for threatening the landlord of the Magistrate. The cognizance was taken on some news items published in the daily "Hindustan Times" and "Kanpur Metro" published from Lucknow and Kanpur respectively, it was alleged that derogatory remarks uttered by the first respondent was also carried by certain news channels of the electronic media.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that the first respondent has already committed himself to the judicial process and has submitted himself before the revisional Court assailing the cognizance order and the consequent summoning order, in these circumstances it appears that the present proceedings before this Court has been initiated in the most casual and irresponsible manner. A number of paragraphs of the petition, viz para 14 would reflect that initially a public interest litigation petition was sought to be filed but it appears on legal advise, the petition was converted into a petition under Article 227, however, it appears the pleadings were accordingly, not amended nor corrected.

The applicant has no concern with the proceedings initiated, suo moto, by the court below, neither is the applicant a complainant, therefore, what motivated the applicant to approach this court assailing the impugned order passed by the revisional court has not been explained.

The learned counsel for the applicant would not dispute that under criminal jurisprudence, it was open for the applicant to file a complaint, against the first respondent if he so desired, before the concerned Police Station, but instead of adopting recourse as available under law, the applicant appears to have ventured in approaching this Court for publicity. It is not being disputed that the applicant is a former MLA and presently associated with a political party which is in opposition to the party to which the first respondent is the President.

In these circumstances, the objection raised by the learned Advocate General that the petition is a gross misuse of the process of the Court cannot be brushed aside lightly.

Another feature of the petition is that the learned Sessions Judge has been impleaded in personal capacity, but the pleadings would reflect that no allegation has been made against the second respondent. The second relief is for a direction to the "appropriate authorities" for taking action against the first respondent, but the authorities have neither been arrayed as parties nor described in the petition.

Supreme Court in of Oswal Fats and Oils Limited vs. Additional Commissioner (Administrative), Bareilly Division1 observed as follows:-

"20. It is settled law that a person who approaches the court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person."

The observations in A. Shanmugam v. Ariya Kshatriya Rajakula Vamsathu Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalanai Sangam2 are also apposite holding:-

43.2. Every litigant is expected to state truth before the law court whether it is pleadings, affidavits or evidence. Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law courts.

43.3. The ultimate object of the judicial proceedings is to discern the truth and do justice. It is imperative that pleadings and all other presentations before the court should be truthful.

43.4. Once the court discovers falsehood, concealment, distortion, obstruction or confusion in pleadings and documents, the court should in addition to full restitution impose appropriate costs. The court must ensure that there is no incentive for wrongdoer in the temple of justice. Truth is the foundation of justice and it has to be the common endeavour of all to uphold the truth and no one should be permitted to pollute the stream of justice.

43.5. It is the bounden obligation of the court to neutralise any unjust and/or undeserved benefit or advantage obtained by abusing the judicial process."

In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.3, Supreme Court noticed an altogether new creed of dishonest litigants, who have flooded the Court. The quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to seek shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the course of court proceedings.

Supreme Court in the case of V. Chandrashekaran and another vs. Administrative Officer and others4 observed that a petition or affidavit containing misleading or inaccurate statement amounts to abuse of process of Court, a litigant cannot take inconsistent positions. Paras 45, is extracted:-

"45. The judicial process cannot become an instrument of oppression or abuse, or a means in the process of the court to subvert justice, for the reason that the court exercises its jurisdiction, only in furtherance of justice. The interests of justice and public interest coalesce, and therefore, they are very often one and the same. A petition or an affidavit containing a misleading and/or an inaccurate statement, only to achieve an ulterior purpose, amounts to an abuse of process of the court.

In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed with heavy cost of Rs. 1,00,000/-.

The applicant shall deposit the cost with the District Magistrate, Mahoba within one month, failing which, it will be open for the District Magistrate, Mahoba to recover the sum as arrears of land revenue. 50 percent of the sum to be deposited with the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad to be utilized by the Mediation and Conciliation Center of the High Court, Allahabad and the remaining 50 percent to be used by Mediation and Conciliation Center of the District Mahoba.

Registrar General of this Court shall forward a copy of this order to the District Magistrate, Mahoba for compliance.

Order Date :- 11.12.2015

S.Prakash