Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh on 12 Sep 2023

Posted on October 10, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court caught a liar in a HMA 24 proceeding.

From Para 6,

6. It is not in dispute that the appellant was M. Phil at the time of her marriage and was pursuing Ph.D which she has completed and is now having the qualification of Ph.D (Management) with professional qualification in Computers. While on the other hand the respondent is a simple graduate. It is also not denied that appellant was working at the time of her marriage at a Diamond Jewellery Showroom and was getting Rs.12,000/- per month. She had left her job since she was unable to attend her office since 22.05.2015.
7. From the submissions it is evident that not only is the appellant highly qualified but had been working even at the time of her marriage.

From Para 8,

8. The second aspect of significance is that the respondent had claimed that the appellant is working in the office of M.P. Udit Raj in Connaught Place and her claim that she is unemployed, is incorrect. In support of his assertions he had relied upon a CD showing the appellant working in the office of Mr. Udit Raj and also marking her attendance in the Register. The appellant who had initially taken a stand that she was not working, when confronted with this CD, gave an explanation that she has a friend working in the office of Mr. Udit Raj and at times when she goes to visit her friend, she also looks after the office work.

Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh on 12 Sep 2023

Citations: [2023 SCC OnLine Del. 5624]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/116590874/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/650084c876bd087c6be01592

https://www.courtkutchehry.com/Judgement/Search/t/5125330-niharika-ghosh-niharika-kundu

Maintenance denied to Highly qualified wife , who approach the Ld. court with unclean hands : DHC as on 21 September 2023

Index of Maintenance Orders under HMA here.

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Posted on January 15, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court held that there is nothing wrong in initiating the Perjury proceedings against the Assistant Professor when she was caught lying about her job and income, just before filing the maintenance case.

From Para 10 and 11,

10. Admittedly, the petitioner joined as an Assistant Professor in Chitkara University, Rajpura on a monthly salary of Rs.28,000/- on 3.7.2017. Her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC was filed on 26.07.2017. During the entire litigation including when her application for interim maintenance was decided she did not disclose information about her job and her earnings and infact deliberately and intentionally to grab maintenance, submitted wrong information to the Court that she was unemployed. The only explanation offered by the petitioner is that she had given the documents to her counsel in the month of May 2017 to file the petition under Section 125 Cr.PC which was filed on 26.07.2017 because of which her joining on 3.7.2017 is not disclosed.
11. In my opinion, this explanation is completely falacious. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor and a highly educated person. At no stage of proceedings uptill her cross examination did she disclose that she was employed including when her application for interim maintenance was decided and Rs.5000/- was awarded to her. Assuming that the said fact was missing in her petition under Section 125 Cr.PC, the Court could have been informed during the course of proceedings that there had been change of circumstances regarding her obtaining employment. However, as has already been mentioned above, no such information was furnished and only the cross examination revealed her job and consequent salary. Thus it can safely be said that the possibility of her conviction was high and her actions were certainly deliberate and conscious to obtain maintenance.

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Index of Perjury decisions is here.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Posted on December 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. Earlier, this Court had issued notice to the petitioner himself to show cause that in case it was a fake institution, what was the reason or rationale for the petitioner to join the same and to continue to serve there for one year. In reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted that such pleadings be ignored and may not be taken into account for the purpose of disposal of the instant petition. We do not see any reason to allow a party to make a pleading in the petition and then make a submission to the court to ignore it as such an issue has no bearing on the merits of the case being totally irrelevant. Pleadings have to be true to the knowledge of the parties and in case a person takes such misleading pleadings, he can be refused not only any kind of indulgence by the court but can also be tried for perjury. In case, the pleading taken by the petitioner is true, he cannot ask for ignoring the same. In case, it is false and as such statement had been made on oath, he is liable to be tried for perjury. More so, whether such a pleading is relevant or not is a matter to be decided by the court and under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, court has a right to ask the party even relevant or irrelevant questions and the parties or their counsel cannot raise any objection to any such question.

From Para 5,

Be that as it may, this Court had insisted at the time of first round of hearing of this case that AOR, Shri Manu Shanker Mishra should remain present in the Court at the time of arguments and also passed over the matter for his appearance. In the second round, it was informed to us that the AOR refused to come to the court. We take a very serious note of the conduct of this AOR, particularly, in view of the judgment of this Court In Re: Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, (2014) 1 SCC 572, wherein this Court has categorically held that in case the AOR does not appear in the court, his conduct may tantamount to criminal contempt of the court. In fact, a very few AsOR have spoiled the working system of the institution of AsOR who simply lend their signatures for petty amount. The AOR involved herein is living in a fool’s paradise if he thinks that he can play hide and seek with any court of law.

In such a chaotic situation, any “Arzi”, “Farzi”, half- baked lawyer under the label of “proxy counsel”, a phrase not traceable under the Advocates Act, 1961 or under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 etc., cannot be allowed to abuse and misuse the process of the court under a false impression that he has a right to waste public time without any authority to appear in the court, either from the litigant or from the AOR, as in the instant case. The AOR, with impunity was disdainful towards the order of this Court directing him to appear in the court. He had also not filed any appearance for the counsel who had appeared, nor the said counsel disclosed his name. The Court takes serious note of the conduct of the AOR, Shri Manu Shanker Mishra and warns him to behave in an appropriate manner befitting the conduct of an advocate and an AOR otherwise this Court will not hesitate to take action against him. His conduct will be under close watch of this Court.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Citations : [2014 ALLCC 84 1002], [2014 ALT CRL AP 2 242], [2014 CCR SC 2 37], [2014 COMPLJ SC 3 197], [2014 RCR CIVIL 2 285], [2014 SCALE 1 751], [2014 SCC 9 230], [2014 SCJ 4 412], [2014 SCR 1 848], [2014 UC 1 516], [2014 SCC CRI 5 21], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 67], [2014 AIOL 52], [2014 SCV 1 397], [2014 SLT 3 298], [2014 RAJ 2 401], [2014 AICLR 1 991], [2014 ALLINDCAS 135 270], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 711]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/199130163/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af4ce4b0149711416146

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/sanjay-kumar-vs-state-of-bihar-anr-5665

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Posted on October 25, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Family Court judge at Bandra, Mumbai passed order to initiate perjury proceedings against lying knife.

From Para 16,

16. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must do equity. The fraud and justice cannot dwell together. The justice seeker must step in the Court with clean hands. The dishonest person cannot be entertained by the Court of law. In matrimonial matters persons come with their family problems before the Court and Court makes every possible attempt to find out solution of their problems. In such circumstances, it is the first and foremost responsibility of the party to tell the truth to the Court, so that Court can go to the root of the matter to solve the real dispute. There should not be game of hide and seek when justice is sought from the Court of law. All the Dharmashastras teach us “सतय ं वदं” “Tell the truth”. Foundation of every case must be on true and honest disclosure of facts. No place can be given to lies or falsehood during the course of administration of justice. The person who comes to the Court i.e. house of justice, to seek justice, has to show his bonafides and honesty by making true disclosure of the facts within his knowledge.

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Neetu Barua Vs Manas Barua on 4 Jul 2018

Posted on July 9, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

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 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82477079/

Section 19/24 of the Hindu Marriage Act dismissed for concealing true income

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993

Posted on July 4, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993 (Original)

Citations : [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

Shiv Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 05 Nov 2020

Posted on November 5, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Kishore Samrite Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 October, 2012

Posted on April 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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

This 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.

Kishore Samrite Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 October, 2012

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

Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013

Posted on March 31, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Citations:

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163886641/

Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018

Posted on March 26, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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,

Before 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.

Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018

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

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Perjury – Approached Court with Unclean Hands

Niharika Kundu Vs Shankar Ghosh on 12 Sep 2023

Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022

Sanjay Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 28 Jan 2014

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Neetu Barua Vs Manas Barua on 4 Jul 2018

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993

This Civil Appeal was numbered 994 of 1972, but got decided on October 27, 1993!

Twenty One (21) years lost at Supreme Court itself!!!

Shiv Kumar Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Ors on 05 Nov 2020

Kishore Samrite Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 October, 2012

Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013

Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018