Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, Advocate who has filed supplementary affidiavt of petitioner no. 2 and the learned AGA for the State respondent.
The present habeas corpus has been filed by petitioner no. 1 alleging that he is the husband of petitioner no. 2, who is being illegally detained by respondent no. 5, her father against her wish.
In the supplementary affidavit filed by Sri Raj Kumar Pandey on behalf of petitioner no. 2, it has been stated that petitioner no. 2 has never solemnized her marriage with petitioner no. 1 but in fact she is married to one Sri Karanveer Singh S/o Sri Amar Singh and is living with her husband and other in-laws at Village Deasai, Post Dhata, District Fatehpur and that she has not authorised petitioner no. 1to file the present habeas corpus petition on her behalf.
The habeas corpus petition is misconceived in as much as the same cannot be filed by a person to adversely affect the reputation of corpus and her family members. Extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not meant for such a thing, which has been done in the instant case.
It is well settled principles of law that when a person approaches the Court of Equity in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, he should approach the Court not only with clean hand but also with clean mind, clear heart and clean objective (vide The Ramjas Foundation & Ors. v Union Of India & Ors; AIR 1993 SC 852; K.R. Sriniwas v RM Premchand & Ors 91994 6 SCC 620). Thus, who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim Jure Naurae Aqquum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fien Locupletiorem, means that is the law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury of the other. Identically, judicial process should not become an instrument of oppression or abuse of a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice, it will effect people faith in efficacy of law and ultimately rule of law will be a casualty. Therefore, easy access to justice should not be misused as a license to file misconceived and frivolous petition. In Trilokchand Motichand Vs. H.B. Munshi, AIR 1970 SC 898; State of Haryana Vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd., AIR 1977 SC 781; and Sabia Khan & ors. Vs. State of U.P. & ors., (1999) 1 SCC 271, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly, as petition containing misleading and inaccurate statement, if filed, to achieve an ulterior purpose amounts to abuse of the process of the Court. In Agriculture & Processed Food Products Vs. Oswal Agro Furane, AIR 1996 SC 1947, the Apex Court had taken a serious objection in a case filed by suppressing the material facts and held that if a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact then his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make "full and true disclosure of facts" while deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance upon the Judgment in Kind Vs. General Commissioner, (1917) 1 KB 486, wherein it has been observed:-
"Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of its merits......."
In Abdul Rahman Vs. Prasony Bai and another, 2003 AIR SCW 14; and S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & ors., AIR 2004 SC 2421, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that process of the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to proceed further and refuse relief to the party. This rule has been evolved out of need of the Court to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the Court by deceiving it. However, the suppressed fact must be material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have led to having a very different outcome on the merit of the case. Legal maxim "Juri Ex Injuria Non Oritur" means that a right cannot arise out of wrong doing, and it becomes applicable in case like this.
The facts stated above also amply depict that the manner in which the petition has been drafted exposes the petitioners to be prosecuted for criminal contempt. It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in the Court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the Court and obtain a favourable order amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends to impede the administration of justice. A Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narain Das Vs. Government of Madhya Pradesh & ors., AIR 1974 SC 1252 has held as under:-
"Now there can be no doubt that if a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and willfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain a favourable order, it would prejudice or interfere with the due course of the judicial proceeding, and thus, amount to contempt of Court."
In Afzal & anr. Vs. State of Haryana & ors., AIR 1996 SC 2326; and Mohan Singh Vs. Late Amar Singh, (1998) 6 SCC 686, the Apex Court held that a false and a misleading statement deliberately and willfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order, amounts to prejudice for interference with the due course of judicial proceedings, and it will amount to criminal contempt. The Court further held that every party is under a legal obligation to make truthful statement before the Court, for the reason that causing obstruction in the due course of justice "undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity."
Accordingly, the present writ petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed with the cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be deposited by petitioner no. 1 before the Registrar General, High Court, which shall be paid to the petitioner no. 2, Smt. Priya Singh. within ten days, after due verification, failing which coercive action shall be taken against petitioner no. 1 forthwith.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010 shailesh