[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Allahabad High Court
Akash Yadav And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... 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:23135-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1815 of 2026
Akash Yadav And Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Raghvendra Pandey, Nikhil Dwivedi, Prerna Srivastava, Rahul Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. List of personal appearance matters revised. None appears for the petitioners even in the revised call.
2. This Court had passed a detailed order on 27.02.2026, which, for the sake of convenience, is reproduced below:-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for the State-respondent nos. 1 & 3.
2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned First Information Report dated 04.12.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0624 of 2025 under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Police Station P.G.I., Commissionerate Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent no. 2 is the wife of the petitioner No.1 and 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, let notice be served to the opposite party no. 2 through opposite party No.3, S.H.O., Police Station-P.G.I., District Lucknow, who shall ensure the presence of the opposite party no.2 before this Court on 02.04.2026 only to ascertain from her as to whether she agrees for the matter being sent to Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court.
5. List this case on 02.04.2026.
6. In order to show their bonafides, let a sum of Rs.20,000/- be deposited by the petitioners before the Mediation Centre of this Court within a period of two weeks from today.
7. It is provided that in case the petitioners deposit the aforesaid amount before Mediation Centre of this Court within the time specified then no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date of listing in pursuance to the impugned FIR.
8. It is needless to mention that in case the petitioners fail to deposit the amount of Rs.20,000/- within a period of two weeks, benefit of this order shall not be available to them.?
3. A perusal of the aforesaid order indicates that the petitioners had indicated on the said date that in case the matter is referred to the Mediation Center of this Court there is every likelihood of the parties settling the dispute amicably amongst themselves.
4. Considering the aforesaid, this Court had required an amount of Rs.20,000/- to be deposited by the petitioners within two weeks and the matter was required to come up today i.e. 02.04.2026 and in pursuance of which, the matter has been listed today.
5. As per office report dated 16.03.2026, the amount of Rs.20,000/- as was required to be deposited has not been deposited by the petitioners till date neither learned counsel for the petitioners is present to indicate as to why the aforesaid deposit could not be made. Thus, it is apparent that an intention had only been expressed on behalf of the petitioners in order to persuade this Court to grant an interim order as has been granted by this Court on 27.02.2026. The intention was for going in for mediation upon deposit of certain amount, which, as already indicated above, has still not been deposited.
6. Thus, it is apparent that a false statement has been given before this Court apart from the fact that even the bonafides, as have been expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners for depositing the aforesaid amount of Rs.20,000/- in order to settle the dispute amicably amongst the parties has not been adhered to neither learned counsel for the petitioners is present before this Court. All these factors are indicative of the fact that there has been patent abuse of the process of the Court.
7. 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.
8. 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."
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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."
12. 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."
13. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion and in the absence of learned counsel for the petitioners despite the list of personal appearance matters having revised and the amount of Rs.20,000/- having not been deposited, this Court has no option but to dismiss the writ petition with an exemplary cost of Rs.20,000/- 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.
14. The reason why we impose a cost of Rs.20,000/- is that it was the same amount which the petitioners had expressed to deposit in order to show their bonafides and since no bona fides have been found on the part of the petitioners, the Court is of the view that the said amount should be imposed as exemplary costs and that nothing less than this amount would suffice.
15. 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
Haseen U.
