9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 956 - SC - Indian LawsPolluting the stream of administration of justice - contempt of court - husband had filed fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings - HELD THAT - A perusal of the paper book in second bail application shows that there is a report annexed by the Registry in the matter. It mentioned about the earlier two bail applications filed in the FIR inquestion. The first bail application filed by the appellant was disposed of on 06.03.2023. Bail application filed by the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur was disposed of on 17.01.2023. The next one was the second bail application filed by the appellant. Though Standing Order No.2 of 2023 directed the Registry to annex all the orders passed in the earlier bail applications by different accused in the same FIR, however, the order passed by the High Court in the case of the appellant, rejecting his earlier bail application, does not form part of the bail application before the High Court. Only the order dated 17.01.2023 passed in the bail application, filed by the co-accused Gangesh Kumar Thakur was annexed. The High Court even granted bail to the appellant. In the bail application filed before the High Court, it was not mentioned that the same was second bail application filed by the appellant. This Court cannot comment on the contents of the bail application filed before the Sessions Judge as the copy thereof is not available on record here. The present appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
Issues Involved:
1. Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts 2. Legal Precedents on Suppression of Facts 3. Bail Application and Judicial Procedure Summary: 1. Misrepresentation and Concealment of Material Facts: The judgment addresses a case where the appellant attempted to mislead the court by concealing material facts. The appellant, while seeking bail, failed to disclose the pendency of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court and the rejection of an earlier bail application by the High Court. The Supreme Court noted that such actions pollute the stream of administration of justice and emphasized the importance of maintaining the purity of the judicial process. 2. Legal Precedents on Suppression of Facts: The judgment references several precedents to underline the gravity of misrepresentation and suppression of facts: - In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC 421, the court held that filing fabricated documents with intent to deceive constitutes contempt of court. - K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others (2008) 12 SCC 481 emphasized that applicants must disclose all material facts fairly and truly, and failure to do so can lead to contempt of court. - Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2010) 2 SCC 114 observed the decline in values and the rise of litigants who resort to falsehood and misrepresentation. - Moti Lal Songara Vs. Prem Prakash @ Pappu and another (2013) 9 SCC 199 reiterated that suppression of truth is equivalent to falsehood and constitutes fraud on the court. - Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement 2023 INSC 1073 highlighted the duty of advocates to assist the court fairly and the consequences of failing to disclose material facts. 3. Bail Application and Judicial Procedure: The appellant's bail application was initially rejected by the Sessions Judge and later by the High Court. Despite this, the appellant filed a second bail application without disclosing the pendency of the SLP. The Supreme Court called for the original record and comments from the High Court and State officials. The court emphasized the need for transparency and proper disclosure in bail applications, suggesting mandatory mention of previous bail applications and their outcomes, as well as any pending applications. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as infructuous but imposed a token cost of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant for misleading the court. The court also issued directions to streamline the process of filing bail applications to avoid similar issues in the future, emphasizing the role of the registry and investigating officers in ensuring complete and accurate disclosure of facts.
|
