[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Mahesh Verma And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 2 April, 2026
Author: Abdul Moin
Bench: Abdul Moin, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC-LKO:23221-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1459 of 2026
Mahesh Verma And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Sudhakar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Sri Ved Prakash Trivedi holding brief of Sri Sudhakar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the petitioners have refused to deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- as was required to be deposited in terms of order of this Court dated 25.02.2026.
2. The aforesaid statement of learned counsel for the petitioners is recorded.
3. However, respondent no.4 is present in pursuance to the aforesaid order who has been brought by HC Neelam Singh as well as Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sub-Inspector, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur.
4. Sri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.4 and also files Vakalatnama on her behalf.
5. Instant petition is an example of reckless statements as are being given before this Court so that this Court is persuaded to grant an interim order and thereafter the petitioners resile from the statement. The reasons as to why we say this are being indicated below-
6. The facts of the case that had led in passing the order dated 25.02.2026 have been indicated in the said order which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:-
"1. Heard.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the FIR No.31 of 2026 udner Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3), 352, 316(2) B.N.S., 3 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, Sultanpur.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states that there is every likelihood of the parties entering into a settlement in case the matter is referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court.
4. Considering the aforesaid, issue notice to respondent No.4.
5. List on 02.04.2026 as fresh on which date the respondent No.4 shall remain present before this Court to indicate as to whether she is willing to go for mediation.
6. Respondent No.3 shall ensure presence of respondent No.4.
7. In order to show bona fides, the petitioners shall deposit an amount of Rs.15,000/- within a period of two weeks from today before the mediation centre of this court. In case the amount is deposited, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners.
8. It is needless to mention that in case the petitioners fail to deposit the amount of Rs.15,000/- within a period of two weeks, benefit of this order shall not be available to them."
7. Once the petitioners have refused to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- in terms of the aforesaid order it is thus apparent that a false statement had been given before this Court apart from the fact that even the bona fide, as has been expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners for paying the amount of Rs.15,000/- in order to settle the dispute amicably between the parties has not been adhered to. This clearly amounts to abuse of the process of the Court.
8. In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors : (2010) 2 SCC 114 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has condemned litigants who use the justice system for their benefit and thereby attempt to pollute the streams of justice.
9. For the sake of convenience relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Singh (supra) are reproduced below:-
"In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
10. Aforesaid judgment has again been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pandurang Vithal Kevne vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr : 2024 INSC 1051.
11. Likewise, this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9143 of 2025 In Re Ashish Kumar & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors where in similar circumstances a litigant had approached this Court duly indicating that he was willing to settle the matter by appearing before the Mediation Center of this Court and in order to show his bonafides certain amount was also required to be deposited yet he failed to either deposit the said amount or appear before the Mediation Center of this Court, as such this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2025 dismissed the said petition with an exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- which was required to be recovered, in case of non payment within a stipulated time as arrears of land revenue.
12. For the sake of convenience, relevant observations in the case of Ashish Kumar (supra) are reproduced hereunder:-
"3. Perusal of aforesaid order emerges that a statement had been made on behalf of the petitioners that there is every likelihood of the parties settling the dispute in case is matter is referred to the Mediation Centre of this Court. Considering the aforesaid, this Court had issued the notice to the respondent no. 4 and also required that the petitioner no. 1 shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- before this Court within a period of ten days.
4. From the perusal of Office reports dated 18.11.2025 and 21.11.2025, it emerges that (a) the amount of Rs.25,000/- has not been deposited and (b) no steps has been taken for issuance of notice to the respondent no. 4. Even learned counsel for the petitioners is not present today.
5. Thus, prima facie, the only reason why a statement was made before this Court for sending the matter to the Mediation was to persuade this Court to grant an interim order in favour of the petitioners. The very conduct of the petitioners in not depositing the amount of Rs.25,000/- before this Court and in not taking steps for issuance of notice to the respondent no. 4 thus indicates patent abuse of process of Court.
6. Considering the aforesaid, this writ petition is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioners. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioners before the Legal Aid Cell of this Court within a period of four weeks, failing which, the amount shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue.
7. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Senior Registrar of this Court for taking appropriate action."
13. Again, this Court in Criminal Misc Case No.8971 of 2025 In Re Dr Nitin Tripathi & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors while considering the case of abuse of process of court in like circumstances has observed as under:-
"9. When once the petitioners have totally resiled from what they have expressed before this Court on 26.09.2025 inasmuch as, neither a demand draft of Rs.40,000/- has been prepared nor any instructions have been given by the petitioners, as such, it is apparent that the petitioners have indulged in abuse of process of the Court by initially indicating their intention of settling the matter amicably and thereafter having totally resiled from the same despite an interim order having been granted in their favour on the basis of those intentions before the Court.
10. Considering the aforesaid, the Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
11. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.40,000/-. The cost shall be deposited by the petitioners with the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee Lucknow within one month failing which the said cost shall be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue."
14. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, this Court has no option but to dismiss the writ petition which is dismissed with an exemplary cost of Rs.30,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners before the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Lucknow within a period of four weeks. In case of non deposit of the aforesaid amount, the said amount would be recovered as arrears of the land revenue.
15. The Court imposes a cost of Rs. 30,000/- for the reasons that Rs. 15,000/- was earlier offered by the petitioners to demonstrate their bona fides, however, no bona fides have been found on their part and additional sum of Rs. 15,000/- is imposed as the respondent no. 4, who was required to appear before the Court pursuant to the order dated 25.02.2026, is present from Sultanpur who is brought by two police personnel. Therefore, the Court considers it appropriate to impose Rs. 30,000/- as exemplary costs, and finds that no lesser amount would suffice. Out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.15,000/- shall be paid to respondent no.4 after the amount, as aforesaid, is deposited by the petitioners.
16. Let a copy of this order be sent to Senior Registrar of this Court for appropriate action.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.)
April 2, 2026
A. Katiyar
