The wife tried to conceal her income by closing down savings accounts and non-disclosure of safe deposit lockers from the Court. The Court took adverse inference and denied Interim Maintenance u/s 24 of HMA.
Neetu Barua Vs Manas Barua on 4 Jul 2018Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82477079/
https://purushayog.in/section-19-24-of-the-hindu-marriage-act-dismissed-for-concealing-true-income/
Landmark judgment by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India around perjury/fraud committed upon the Courts. Just read the below line to understand how far the frauds take the Courts for a ride.
This Civil Appeal was numbered 994 of 1972, but got decided on October 27, 1993!
Twenty One (21) years lost at Supreme Court itself!!!
From Para 5,
5. 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.
From Para 6,
6. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex. B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants- defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.
Indiankanoon version:
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993Casemine version:
S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. Vs Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors on 27 Oct 1993Citations : [1994 AIR SC 853], [1993 SCALE 4 277], [1994 UJ SC 1 1], [1993 BC SC 2 546], [1994 BLJR 1 216], [1994 OLR SC 1 201], [1995 PLR 109 293], [1993 SUPP SCR 3 422], [1994 SCC 1 1], [1994 PLJR 1 39], [1994 APLJ SC 1 66], [1994 LW 1 21], [1994 GLH 1 81], [1993 JT SC 6 331]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1151521/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f23f
High Court of Punjab and Haryana has taken the arrogant advocate to the ride enhancing the costs from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-, on his invitation. LOL
From Para 11,
11. No doubt, merely because civil suits are pending would not mean that simultaneous criminal proceedings cannot be instituted on the same cause of action. Provided of course, any criminal case is made out. Prima facie, the lis herein seems to be of civil in nature and institution of the criminal proceedings is being sought for collateral pressure and for settling private scores/gains. Be that as it may, it is for the appropriate court to look into the same, in accordance with law.
Legal options for getting a Criminal FIR registered, from Para 12,
12. In my opinion, the petitioner ought to have first approached the trial Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C for redressal of his grievance, if any, before directly approaching this Court. Section 156 (3) empowers aMagistrate to ensure proper investigation. Ordinarily, in case of a grievance arising out of non registration of an FIR, first remedy is to approach theSuperintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or any other competent police officer per Section 36 Cr.P.C. However, even if thereafter,grievance is unmitigated, one can take judicial recourse by approaching a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Still, thereafter, an aggrieved partyhas a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Reference may be had to Apex Court judgment in “Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P and others”.
NOTE: First complaint at nearest police station u/s 154(1) CrPC, then escalation to SP/SSP/CP u/s 154(3) CrPC, then complaint to Jurisdictional Magistrate u/s 156(3) CrPC and then filing a criminal complaint u/s 200 CrPC.
Then rubbing the saw-dust on the wound of the losing party, High Court held as follows while levying costs,
13. The other relief qua dissolution of trust and/or induct/appoint the petitioner as its Secretary sought herein being civil in nature, instant petition qua the same is an abuse of the court process. In any case, conduct of the petitioner for indulging in subtle concealment, as aforesaid, does not inspire
any confidence so as to exercise any jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited in Covid-19 fund created by U.T. Administration, Chandigarh. Liberty is though granted to approach trial court, as already observed herein above.
14. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner very rowdily exuberates that paying costs is not an issue and he is even ready to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards the same. He also boisterously claims that he has been instrumental in making many a judges and how can his arguments/contentions,therefore, be rejected by this court to dismiss the instant petition. To say the least, the tone, tenor, manner and conduct of the learned counsel for petitioner leaves a lot to desire. Yet, taking a lenient view thereof, this court rather prefers a self-restraint from taking any further action. However, on the invitation of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the cost imposed is enhanced to Rs.1 lac.
Shiv Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 05 Nov 2020
In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has saddled the person with heavy exemplary costs, who lied through the teeth in the writ petition. Actually, Costs of Rs.50,00,000/- was brought down to Rs.5,00,000/-
From Para 4,
Writ Petition No.111 of 2011, even if not complete in its form, was maintainable and the same could not have been dismissed by the Court as the prayer by the appellant in that writ petition for habeas corpus was maintainable in view of the right to life and liberty of the petitioners stated therein, as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, was violated. The petition had been filed by the appellant as next friend and had not seen the alleged detenues since 4th January, 2007 when they were last seen in Amethi. According to the appellant the representations made to various authorities had failed to yield any results. Thus, that petition was not liable to be dismissed.
Abuse of the process of Court :Unclean Hands
Kishore Samrite Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 October, 2012This Court has had many occasions where it dealt with the cases of this kind and it has clearly stated the principles that would govern the obligations of a litigant while approaching the court for redressal of any grievance and the consequences of abuse of the process of court. We may recapitulate and state some of the principles. It is difficult to state such principles exhaustively and with such accuracy that would uniformly apply to a variety of cases. These are:
(i) Courts have, over the centuries, frowned upon litigants who, with intent to deceive and mislead the Courts, initiated proceedings without full disclosure of facts and came to the courts with ‘unclean hands’. Courts have held that such litigants are neither entitled to be heard on the merits of the case nor entitled to any any relief.
(ii) The people, who approach the Court for relief on an ex parte statement, are under a contract with the court that they would state the whole case fully and fairly to the court and where the litigant has broken such faith, the discretion of the court cannot be exercised in favour of such a litigant.
(iii) The obligation to approach the Court with clean hands is an absolute obligation and has repeatedly been reiterated by this Court.
(iv) Quests for personal gains have become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood and misrepresent and suppress facts in the court proceedings. Materialism, opportunism and malicious intent have over-shadowed the old ethos of litigative values for small gains.
(v) A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
(vi) The Court must ensure that its process is not abused and in order to prevent abuse of the process the court, it would be justified even in insisting on furnishing of security and in cases of serious abuse, the Court would be duty bound to impose heavy costs.
(vii) Wherever a public interest is invoked, the Court must examine the petition carefully to ensure that there is genuine public interest involved. The stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted by unscrupulous litigants.
(vii) The Court, especially the Supreme Court, has to maintain strictest vigilance over the abuse of the process of court and ordinarily meddlesome bystanders should not be granted “visa”. Many societal pollutants create new problems of unredressed grievances and the Court should endure to
take cases where the justice of the lis well-justifies it.
Citations: [(2013) 2 SCC 398], [AIR 2012 SC (Supp) 699], [MANU/SC/0892/2012], [JT (2012) 10 SC 393]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172073149/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1be4b0149711415a1b
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
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, 2013Citations:
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163886641/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
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 a litigant 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, 2019Index of all Perjury case laws is here.
Basing 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.
Bad Behavior has blocked 598 access attempts in the last 7 days.
