Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar, holding brief of Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Poonam Singh, learned standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
(i)issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondent no.4 for creating hindrance and disturbances in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners.
The affidavit to the writ petition has been sworn by both the petitioners. In paragraph nos. 3 and 4 it is stated that date of birth of the petitioner no.1 is 5.1.1991 as per Secondary School Certificate and of petitioner No.2 is 3.7.1990 as per Scholar's Register and Transfer certificate issued by Principal Adarsh Inter College, Kaushambi. Petitioner no.1 is stated to be resident of District Nagapur (Maharashtra) while petitioner no.2 has been shown to be resident of District - Kaushambi.
In paragraph nos. 9 to 13 and 16 the petitioners have made allegations against the respondent no.4 (father of the petitioner no.1) as under:
9. That being aggrieved by the marriage of the petitioners, respondent no.4 started torturing the petitioners by illegal means and also started threatening them for falsely implicating the petitioner no.2 and his family members in criminal cases with the help of local police of the police station concerned.
10. That the petitioner no.1 represented her before the respondent no.2 with a prayer to restrain the respondent no.4 from creating any hindrance over the peaceful and happy married life of the petitioners. The photocopy of the letter dated 2.6.2016 sent by the petitioner no.1 to the respondent no.2 is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.3 to this writ petition.
11. That the petitioners are the citizen of India, they have legally solemnized marriage on 28.5.2016 and since then they are living as husband and wife but respondent no.4 is continuously giving threats to the petitioners.
12. That the petitioners are in disturbances on account of creating hindrance in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners by the respondent no.4. Petitioners have lost their peace of living as they have always apprehension in their mind that any incident can taken place on the part of the respondent no.4.
13. That no F.I.R. Has ever been lodged by the respondent no.4 against the petitioners till date.
16. That in view of the fact and circumstances of the case as mentioned above, it is expedient in the interest of justice that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondent no.1 to 3 to take appropriate action against the respondent no.4 for creating hindrance and disturbance in peaceful life and liberty of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition before this Hon'ble Court otherwise the petitioners shall suffer an irreparable loss. And/or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem and fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case, otherwise applicant/petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
Learned counsel for the petitioners has supported the averments as quoted above and submitted that the respondent no.4 is torchering and threatening to the petitioners to implicate them in criminal cases with the help of local police.
The petitioner no.1 and 2 both are present in the Court. The petitioner no.1 offered for recording his oral statement in the open Court in presence of her counsel and the statement so recorded today is reproduced below:
"eSa lksuw iq=h Lo0 vkse izdk'k vEcsMdj] fuoklh&iwoZ gfjdj ys ykmV] fppdjk] lqesj okMZ ua0&9] rglhy&lkousUnz] ftyk&ukxiqj ¼egkjk"Vª½ dh gwWA eSa l'kiFk fuEufyf[kr c;ku djrh gwW fd esjs firk vkse izdk'k vEcsMj dk LoxZokl lu~ 1994 esa gks x;k FkkA eq>s ;g ugha ekywe esjs firk th dks bl ;kfpdk esa izfri{k la0&4 cuk;k x;k gSA ;kfpdk ds izLrj 10] 12 ,oa 16 esa firk th ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi eSaus ugha fy[kk;s gSA ;kfpdk ds layXud 3 izkFkZuki= fnukad 30-05-2016 dks eSaus ugha fy[kk;k gS eq>s ugha ekywe fd esjk izkFkZuk i= fdlus fy[kk gS tks fd esjs firk ds fo:) gSA tc fd og lu~ 1994 esa gh ej pqds gSA eSa b.Vj ehfM,V gwWA eSa fgUnh vkSj vaxszth nksuksa Hkk"kk,a fy[ki< ldrh gwWA eSus mijksDr ;kfpdk ij fcuk i<+s vius vf/koDRkk Jh vf[kys'k dqekj dh mifLFkr esa gLrk{kj fd;s FksA c;ku i<+dj o lqudj ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh mifLFkfr esa gLrk{kj fd;sA "
The statement of petitioner no.2 was also recorded in the open court in presence of his counsel and the statement so recorded is reproduced below:
"eSa euthr dqekj iq= jke Qdhjs] xzke&tcbZ frYgkiqj] ftyk&dkS'kkEch dk fuoklh gwWA eSa l'kiFk c;ku djrk gwW fd ;kfpdk izLrj ds layXud la[;k 9] 10] 11] 12 ,oa 16 esa izfri{k la[;k 4 ds fo:) yxk;s x;s vkjksi xyr gS] D;ksafd izfri{k la[;k 4 dh e`R;q lu~ 1994 esa gh gks pqdh gSA bl ;kfpdk ds layXud 3 izkFkZuki= fnukad 30-05-2016 dks ns[kdj dgk fd eq>s ugh ekywe fd fdlus izkFkZuki= fy[kk gSA eSa ch0,0 gjoa'k izlkn egkfo|ky; nqxkZiqj] frYgkiqj] ftyk&dkS'kkEch ls izkbZosV fo|kFkhZ ds :i esa dj jgk gwWA eq>s vkSj dqN ugha dguk gSA c;ku i<+dj o lqudj ekuuh; U;k;ky; dh mifLFkfr esa gLrk{kj fd;sA"
In paragraph 10, it has been stated that petitioner no.1 represented before the respondent no.2 to restrain the respondent no.4 from creating any hindrance in the peaceful and happy life of the petitioner. A copy of the alleged representation dated 13.5.2016 has been filed as Annexure no.3 to the writ petition in which it is alleged that the respondent no.4 who is father of the petitioner no.1, is causing threat with the help of local police to implicate the petitioner in a false case and also threatening them to kill.
In her statement on oath the petitioner no.1 has stated before this Court that her father i.e. respondent no.4, had died in the year 1994 and she has not written the alleged letter dated 13.5.2016 filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition.
The petitioner no.2 has also stated on oath before this Court that he has not written the aforesaid letter dated 30.5.2016.
The statements of the petitioner as well as the averments made in paragraph 9 to 13 and 16 of the writ petition extracted above and the admitted facts of the case that the respondent no.4 died as back as in the year 1994, leaves no manner of doubt that the writ petition has been filed making false allegation. This attempt of the petitioners amounts to fraud upon the Court.
In the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. 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 judgement of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obrtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everythin " (Lazarus Estate Ltd. V. Beasley 1956 (1) QB 702).
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 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."
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."
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."
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.
29.10 The 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."
In view of the above discussion, particularly in view of the fact that the writ petition has been filed making false allegations and impleading a dead person and that manipulated paper has been filed along with the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioners with the Legal Cell Authority, High Court, Allahabad, within a month from today.
Order Date :- 30.6.2016/vkg