The cunning knife produced a forged passport and husband exposed her with a RTI response from Passport Authority. And the clever police denied to file a FIR for the forgery complaint!!
Hon’ble Madras High Court ordered the police to file FIR and investigate the case in accordance with law. Awesome !!!
Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013
In this order from Calcutta High Court(appellate side),
Para 15,
According to the Law Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin Maxim “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” defines that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. The suppression or failure to disclose what one party is bound to disclose to another, may amount to fraud. Where a person is found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of the Court, he is not entitled for any equitable relief under order 39 of CPC (5 of 1908). [Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazi Md. Faizullah Khan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat) : (2006) 1 BLJR 430].
From Para 25,
I have no hesitation in saying that the doors of justice would be closed for alitigant whose case is based on falsehood or suppression of material facts. Fraud and justice never dwell together. They are alien to each other. Fraud pollutes the sanctity, regularity, orderliness and solemnity of the judicial proceedings. It is the bounden duty of the Court to keep the stream of justice absolutely clean.
Finally, from Para 29,
Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018Before finally pronouncing my decision, I must state that this court, in all fairness gave an opportunity, after hearing and going through the documents produced by the respondents, to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition (with liberty to file afresh with better particulars). However, Mr. Saktipada Jana appearing on behalf of the petitioner, refused and pressed the writ petition unabated. One is reminded of the saying, “you can take a horse to the well, but cannot force it to drink”. In view of the same, I dismiss the writ petition in limine. I am of the view that exemplary costs should be awarded. However, on a compassionate plea made by Mr. Jana, the order as to costs is limited to Rs.5,000/- only, payable to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata, within two weeks from date.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
A diabolical Medical college management played a cunning cat and mouse game with MCI, Government and the hon’ble Supreme Court of India to cheat and get permission to do admissions for medical courses in their college and paid the hefty price.
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019Basing on this Apex Court judgment here, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, “His Lordship held that an order of dismissal under Section 203 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for short ‘the Code’) is, however, no bar to the entertainment of a second complaint on the same facts but it can be entertained only in exceptional circumstances. This Court explained the exceptional circumstances as (a) where the previous order was passed on incomplete record (b) or on a misunderstanding of the nature of the complaint (c) or the order which was passed was manifestly absurd, unjust or foolish or (d) where new facts which could not, with reasonable diligence, have been brought on the record in the previous proceedings. This Court made it very clear that interest of justice cannot permit that after a decision has been given on a complaint upon full consideration of the case, the complainant should be given another opportunity to have the complaint enquired into again.”
Poonam Chand Jain & Anr Vs Fazru on 28 January, 2010
Improperly framed affidavits are held to be not acceptable by Supreme court per CPC and relevant Supreme Court Rules.
From Para 51, 52 and 53,
Apart from the aforesaid, in the writ petition which was filed on 21st January, 2006, there is no mention of the fact that the petitioner gave a statement under section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure in connection with the investigation arising out of FIR lodged on 30th December, 2005. From the records of the case it appears the petitioner gave 161 statement on 13th January, 2006. In the writ petition there is a complete suppression of the aforesaid fact. A statement under Section 161 is certainly a material fact in a police investigation in connection with an FIR. The investigation is to find out the genuineness of those very documents on the basis of which the writ petition was moved. In that factual context, total suppression in the writ petition of the fact that the petitioner gave a 161 statement in that investigation is, in our judgment, suppression of a very material fact.
It is, therefore, clear that writ petition is frivolous and is speculative in character. This Court is of the opinion that the so called legal questions on tapping of telephone cannot be gone into on the basis of a petition which is so weak in its foundation.
Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts. Courts held that such litigants have come with “unclean hands” and are not entitled to be heard on the merits of their case.
From Para 58,
It is one of the fundamental principles of jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their pleadings and especially when it contains a prayer for injunction. A prayer for injunction, which is an equitable remedy, must be governed by principles of ‘uberrima fide’.
From Para 62,
Following these principles, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the instant writ petition is an attempt by the petitioner to mislead the Court on the basis of frivolous allegations and by suppression of material facts as pointed out and discussed above.
From Para 65,
Amar Singh Vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 May, 2011This court wants to make one thing clear i.e. perfunctory and slipshod affidavits which are not consistent either with Order XIX Rule 3 of the CPC or with Order XI Rules 5 and 13 of the Supreme Court Rules should not be entertained by this Court.
Another authority from hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that,
K.D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority Of India Ltd. and Ors. on July 09, 2008the appellant has not come forward with all the facts. He has chosen to state facts in the manner suited to him by giving an impression to the Writ Court that an instrumentality of State (SAIL) has not followed doctrine of natural justice and fundamental principles of fair procedure. This is not proper. Hence, on that ground alone, the appellant cannot claim equitable relief.
A company by name Sciemed Overseas tried to mislead the High Court by falsely saying in their affidavit that a certain said contract work is nearing completion whereas in reality it was not so, as assessed by a court-appointed advocate, as a one-man committee.
Hon’ble High Court “took the view that Sciemed had given a false affidavit in this Court to the effect that the work was near completion. In this view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sciemed and imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.”
After this the said company pushes it’s proprietor to state one more ‘justification’ affidavit saying what was said earlier was about just one piece of work and not ‘whole’ piece of work. The deponent after giving the above explanation, tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology to the High Court for the statement regarding the near completion of the project.
And then another twist in this companies averments came in as in fact the statement made in the affidavit filed in this Court was not a false statement but was bona fide and not a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. It was also submitted that the allegedly false or misleading statement had no impact on the decision taken by this Court and should, therefore, be ignored.
After all these flip flops, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below in Para 23,
Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs BOC India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016The correctness of the statement made by Sciemed was examined threadbare not only by the learned Single Judge but also by the Division Bench and it was found that a considerable amount of work had still to be completed by Sciemed and it was not as if the work was nearing completion as represented to this Court. Additionally, the Report independently given by the learned advocate appointed to make an assessment, also clearly indicated that a considerable amount of work had still to be performed by Sciemed. The Report was not ex parte but was carefully prepared after an inspection of the site and discussing the matter with Shailendra Prasad Singh the proprietor of Sciemed and an engineer of Sciemed as well as officers from the RIMS.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has held that,
The invocation of jurisdiction under extraordinary powers vested in this Court cannot be allowed to a person, who comes to the Court with unclean hands or suppressing material facts in order to gain advantage. The petitioner cannot take advantage of the lethargy or inaction on the part of the Government Officers. If the petitioner is really aggrieved, this Court will extend its helping hand in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of India or/and the laws framed under it. But, this Court will never encourage misuse of process of this Court. This Court cannot be used for the purpose of getting interim orders to protect an unlawful need/demand of the litigants who are greedy. This is a sacred institution and it cannot be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
Finally,
P.Parameshwar Reddy Vs The State Of Telangana on 10 August, 2015In view of the suppression of fact of dismissal of W.P.No.25217 of 2003 on 16.11.2009, and not disclosing complete facts with regard to the case of the petitioner, this Writ Petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Telangana Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
A perjury order from Hon’ble Bombay High Court under section 340 of Cr.P.C against offences under sections 193, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of IPC.
Fareed Ahmed Qureshi Vs State of Maharashtra on 7 March, 2018
This is set aside by Apex Court here.
A batch of SLPs submitted by appellant educational institutions are dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment, who were held not to have approached the Apex Court with clean hands.
Abhyudya Sanstha vs Union Of India & Ors on 12 May, 2011
