2022 (2) TMI 1409 - HC - Indian Laws

Seeking grant of regular bail - disobedience of order of court - Concealment of material facts and documents - suicide - dowry case - HELD THAT - The applicant has no respect to the orders of the Supreme Court as well as this Court. Furthermore, he has not approached this Court with clean hand and filed this application suppressing the material facts in sheer disobedience of the orders of Supreme Court as well as this Court. Therefore, she does not deserve any indulgence by this Court - Time and again the issue of abuse of process of law has come up before the Supreme Court as well as High Courts. The Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants, who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. In ARUNIMA BARUAH VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS 2007 (4) TMI 695 - SUPREME COURT , Supreme Court held that it is trite law that to enable the Court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction suppression must of material fact. Material fact would mean material for the purpose of determination of the lis. It was further held that a person invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of the court cannot be allowed to approach it with a pair of dirty hands. The applicant has misused the process of law by filing successive applications before this Court suppressing the material facts and documents and misled the Court. Honesty, fairness, purity of mind should be of the highest order to approach the court, failing which the litigant should be shown the exit door at the earliest point of time. The application is rejected with costs, which is quantified at Rs. 25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand only) to be deposited by the applicant within one month with the Registrar General of this Court, failing which the same shall be recovered from the applicant as arrears of land revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of proceedings in a criminal case under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2. Applicant's compliance with court orders and approach to the court.
3. Misuse of legal process by suppressing material facts and documents.

Analysis:
1. The applicant sought to quash proceedings in a criminal case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The case involved allegations of dowry harassment leading to suicide. The applicant had filed multiple applications, including for anticipatory bail and quashing of proceedings, concealing previous court orders. The court noted the applicant's non-compliance with orders and misuse of legal process.

2. The court highlighted the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and full disclosure of material facts. The applicant's failure to comply with court orders, including Supreme Court directives, and the repeated filing of applications without disclosing relevant information were considered as acts of disrespect towards the judicial system. The court emphasized that the legal system should not be manipulated for personal gain.

3. Citing legal precedents, the court reiterated that suppression of material facts is impermissible when seeking discretionary relief from the court. The applicant's actions were deemed as an abuse of the legal process, leading to a dismissal of the application with costs imposed. The court emphasized the need for honesty, fairness, and transparency in legal proceedings to uphold the integrity of the judicial system. The judgment concluded with the imposition of costs to be deposited for the welfare of children.