1. Heard Sri J.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.S. Shreenet, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:
"(I) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful life of the petitioner No.1 and 2 as husband wife and not to harass the petitioners only on the basis of application moved by Smt. Ladi Devi W/o Late Gopal Lal R/o 1A 79 Kacchi Basti Tila No.1 Jawahar Nagar Jaipur (Rajasthan) at present R/o Village Rasoolpur Police Station Rasoolabad District Kanpur Dehat Respondent No.4 against the petitioners.
(II) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
(III)Award cost."
3. In the array of parties, the present address of Respondent No.4, who is mother of petitioner No.1 girl has been shown as village Rasoolpur, Police Station Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat, which infact is the address of Petitioner No.2.
4. In paragraph No.4 of the writ petition the petitioner No.2 has stated that the petitioner No.1 is aged about 19 years as per ration card issued by Government of Rajasthan, a photostat copy of which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. In paragraph No.5 of the writ petition the petitioner No.2 stated himself to be aged about 25 years, as per alleged copy of voter I.D. card filed as Annexure-2. Originals of both these papers have not been produced by the petitioners. In paragraph No.6 of the writ petition it is stated that petitioner No.1 accepted Islam and performed marriage on 18th October, 2014. In paragraph No.7 of the writ petition it is stated that family members of Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 neither participated in the marriage ceremony nor they reached at the place of marriage on 18.10.2014 whereas petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 had given the marriage card to the Respondent No.4, mother of petitioner No.1 girl as well as in the house of petitioner No.2. In paragraph Nos. 9,10, and 11 of the writ petition it is stated that police raided the house of petitioner No.2 on 24th October, 2014 at 6 P.M. and thereafter on 25th October, 2014.
5. On 29th October, 2014 this writ petition was heard at length. Both the petitioners also appeared in person. On that day following order was passed:
Heard Shri Jitendra Kumar Ojhan, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.S.Srinet, learned Standing Counsel.
Both the petitioners are present in Court and have been identified by their counsel.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has produced two papers namely, alleged Nikahnama and alleged Sanad Qubool Islam. A copy of alleged Nikahnama and Sanad Qubool Islam have been filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. Along with writ petition, a copy of alleged Ration Card No.03693 said to be issued by Nagar Nigam, Jaipur has been filed as Annexure No.1, in which, family members have been shown only one Smt. Ladi Devi and the petitioner No.1. It is stated in paragraph no.3 of the writ petition that a writ, order or direction may be issued in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful life of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 as husband wife and not to harass the petitioners only on the basis of application moved by Smt. Ladi Devi W/o late Gopal Lal R/o 1A-79, Kacchi Basti Tila No.1, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) at present resident of village Rasoolpur, Police Station Rasoolabad District Kanpur Dehat.
It is stated in paragraph no.6 of the writ petition that the petitioner no.2 has married with petitioner no.1 as per Sanad Qubool Islam and Nikahnama. It is stated in paragraph no.7 that family members of the petitioner nos. 1 and 2 neither participated in their marriage nor they have reached at the place of marriage on 18.10.2014, whereas petitioner nos. 1 and 2 have given the marriage card to the respondent No.4, i.e., mother of petitioner no.1.
It is stated in paragraph no.8 that the respondent no.4 Smt. Ladi Devi at present resident of village Rasoolpur, Police Station Rasoolabad District Kanpur Dehat had badly interfered in the peaceful life of the petitioners. It is stated in paragraph nos.9, 10 and 11 of the writ petition that the police of Police Station Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat along with respondent no.4 raided the house of petitioner no.2 on 245.10.2014 at 6.00 p.m., on 25.10.2014 and also on 26.10.2014 twice at 2 p.m., and thereafter, at 11.30 p.m. Petitioner No.1 has also stated today before this Court that there are three members in her family namely; her mother Ladi Devi , she herself and her elder brother Dharamraj Prajapati. She states that neither any card for their marriage was printed nor it was sent to her mother respondent no.4. Her elder brother is running sweetmeat shop and they were residing together along with the mother Ladi Devi.
Petitioner No.1 who is present has stated before the Court that she does not know what happened during the alleged Nikah. She further states that she does not know where she was brought. Petitioner No.2 who is also present in person in Court today has stated that Nikah took place on 18.0.2014 in a mosque at Allahabad according to Muslim customs. The Court when asked to tell the name of mosque where alleged Nikah took place and the name of Qazi, he states that he does not know. The alleged Sanad Qubool Islam bears the name of the Qazi who issued Sanad Qubool Islam to be one Sri Mumtaz Ahmad while the rubber stamp bears the name of Mukhtar Ahmad.
In paragraph No.7 of the writ petition, it is stated that the marriage card was given to the mother of petitioner no.1, i.e., respondent no.4 whereas the petitioner no.1 has clearly stated before this Court that no marriage card was prepared or given to respondent no.4. She does not know what has happened on 18.10.2014. The petitioner no.2 is also unable to tell where Nikah took place and the name of Qazi who allegedly conducted Nikah ceremony and issued Nikahnama. Even the name of Qazi as mentioned in Sanad Qubool Islam and the rubber stamp are different. The entire pleadings made in the writ petition and the statement made before this Court by petitioner nos.1 and 2 and the alleged documents filed clearly appears contradictory. There is no age proof of petitioner no.1.
In view of the aforenoted facts and circumstances, the alleged Original Sanad Qubool Islam and the alleged Nikahnama both dated 18.10.2014 as produced by petitioner no.2 are directed to be kept in safe custody by the Registrar General.
Both the petitioners are directed to file their personal affidavits within 24 hours explaining the above mentioned circumstances and facts. They shall also appear in person before this Court on 31.10.2014 at 10.00 A.M. along with the Qazi who issued the alleged Nikahnama and Sanad Qubool Islam.
Put up on 31.10.2014."
6. On 31st October, 2014 learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for and was allowed three days' further time to enable learned counsel for the petitioners to comply with the order dated 29.10.2014. The matter was directed to be put up on 5th November, 2014.
7. On 5th November, 2014 despite the order dated 29th October, 2014 neither the petitioners appeared nor learned counsel for petitioners made any submission and instead requested that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed which prayer was rejected in view of the facts recorded in the order dated 29th October, 2014 and non compliance of the order by the petitioner No.2. Authenticity of the papers filed along with the writ petition was also found to be doubtful. Serious discrepancies were also found in the papers filed by the petitioner No.2 along with the writ petition. Petitioner No.1 girl appeared to be minor but she was neither produced by the petitioner No.2 nor petitioner No.2 appeared in compliance to the order dated 29th October, 2014 and, as such, even no direction could be issued for ossification test of the girl. Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that the petitioners has to say nothing.
8. As per copy of the alleged ration card of Respondent No.4, filed as Annexure-1, there are only two members, namely, respondent No.4 and the petitioner No.1 girl and their address is shown as 1A79, Kacchi Basti Tila No.1 Jawahar Nagar Jaipur, Ward No. 48, Jaipur, 302004. As noted in the order dated 29th October, 2014, petitioner No.1 stated before this Court that there are three members in her family, namely, her mother Ladi Devi, as head of the family, she herself and her elder brother Sri Dharmraj Prajapati. She also stated that neither any card for marriage was printed nor it was sent to the Respondent No.4. She stated that her elder brother is running a sweet-meat shop and they were residing together along with their mother Ladi Devi. She stated that she does not know what happened during the alleged Nikah and where she was brought. The petitioner No.2 stated before this that Nikah took place in a mosque at Allahabad but when the Court asked him to tell the name of mosque where alleged Nikah took place and the name of Qazi, he stated that he does not know. Thus, the averments in the writ petition that there are only two members in the family of Respondent No.4, i.e. the Respondent No.4 herself and petitioner no.1 and the allegations with regard to Nikah and sending of marriage cards etc., are found to be false. Petitioner No.1 girl is resident of Jaipur (Rajasthan) while Petitioner No.2, is resident of District Kanpur Dehat but deliberately petitioner No.2 shown his own address as the address of the Respondent no.4, i.e. mother of petitioner No.1. This has been done to mislead the Court. The fact with regard to elder brother of petitioner No.1 has been deliberately suppressed. Petitioner No.1 expressed before this Court her total ignorance that what happened during the alleged Nikah and where she was brought. The alleged Nikah and Sanad Kabul Islam bears the name of Mumtaz Ahmad who allegedly issued it but the stamp bears the name of one Mukhtar Ahmad. The petitioner No.2 who brought the petitioner No.1 before this Court on 29th October, 2014 neither appeared deliberately on subsequent dates nor produced the petitioner No.1. Non appearance of petitioner No.2 appears to be due to influence of petitioner No.2 over her and also because she herself stated the facts before this Court which are mentioned in the order dated 29th October, 2014.
9. As discussed above, it is clear that the writ petition has been filed along with the affidavit of petitioner No.2, making false and misleading averments. Petitioner No.2 has not only avoided his further appearance in person but also did not deliberately file his personal affidavit in compliance to the order dated 29.10.2014. In fact the petitioner No.2 has not only made false averments but also misrepresented. After the aforenoted illegalities were noticed, the counsel for the petitioner No.2 stated before this Court on 5th November, 2014 that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed. This prayer was rejected by this Court for the reason that the facts and circumstances as briefly noted and discussed above indicated making of false averments by the petitioner No.2 in the writ petition and misrepresentation and suppression of facts by him before this Court. The petitioners, particularly, Petitioner No.2 attempted to abuse the process of the Court.
10. On 5th November, 2014 learned Standing Counsel made the following submissions:
Learned standing counsel submits that the facts and circumstances of the case and the statements made before this Court, as noted in the order dated 29th October, 2014, clearly reveals that neither there was any actual religion conversion nor Nikaha. The writ petition is based on false averments and manipulated piece of papers. Even no convincing age proof to establish that petitioner No.1 is above 18 years of age, has been filed. He submits that the present writ petition is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court to somehow obtain an order from the Court for protection from the legal consequences that may follow against the petitioner No.2 for enticing the petitioner No.1 who is a minor girl.
11. The above noted submissions were not disputed or denied by the counsel for the petitioners and instead it was stated that the writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed.
12. In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. V. B.Rajendra Singh and others, JT 2000(3)SC.151, considering the fact of fraud, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraph 3 as under :
"Fraud and justice never dwell together". (Frans et jus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper overall these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judegment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything"(Lazarus Estate Ltd. V. Beasley 1956(1)QB 702).
(Emphasis supplied by me)
13. In the case of Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another Vs. Girdhari Lal Yadav, 2004 (6) SCC 325, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the applicability of principles of natural justice in cases involving fraud and held in paragraph 12 and 13 as under :
"12. Furthermore, the respondent herein has been found guilty of an act of fraud. In opinion, no further opportunity of hearing is necessary to be afforded to him. It is not necessary to dwell into the matter any further as recently in the case of Ram chandra Singh v. Savitri devi this Court has noticed :
"15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together.
16.Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter.
It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.
18.A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad."
19. In Derry V. Peek (1889) 14 AC 337 it was held: "In an action of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false.
A false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true, is not fraudulent and does not render the person make it liable to an action of deceit."
14. In the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and others, 2003(8) SCC 319, Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 25 and 37 as under :
"15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well-known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwells together.
16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person, or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of former either by word or letter.
17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.
18.A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.
25. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res-judicata.
37. It will bear repetition to state that any order obtained by practising fraud on court is also non-est in the eyes of law."
15. In the case of S.P. ChengalVaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, AIR 1994 SC 853, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 7 as under :
"7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who's case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation."
16. In the case of Jainendra Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2012 (8) SCC 748, Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the fact of appointment obtained by fraud and held in para 29.1 to 29.10 as under :
"29.1 Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such cases merely because the respondent employee has continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.
29.2 Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his antecedents the appointing authority if find not desirable to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be unwarranted.
29.3 When appointment was procured by a person on the basis of forged documents, it would amount to misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore, it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer while resorting to termination without holding any inquiry.
29.4 A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service and the employer, having regard to the nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the discretion to terminate his services.
29.5 Purpose of calling for information regarding involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction is for the purpose of verification of the character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and suppression of such material information will have clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in relation to his continuity in service.
29.6 The person who suppressed the material information and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for appointment or continuity in service.
29.7 The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and, therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.
29.8 An employee on probation can be discharged from service or may be refused employment on the ground of suppression of material information or making false statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case, conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
29.9 An employee in the uniformed service pre-supposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
5.29.10The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate has not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable."
17. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the relief as prayed by the petitioners cannot be granted. Writ petition deserves to be dismissed with cost.
18. In result the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/- which shall be deposited within one month by the petitioner No.2 with the High Court Legal Cell Authority, Allahabad.
Order date:5.12.2014 Mt