2012 (10) TMI 1097 - SC - Indian Laws

Court modifies judgment, dismisses writ petitions, orders CBI probe, stresses clean hands principle.

The appeal was disposed of with the court modifying the judgment under appeal, dismissing both writ petitions with exemplary costs and directing further ... Whether there was violation of Principles of Natural Justice and whether transfer of Writ Petition No. 111/2011 was in accordance with law ? Whether both or any of the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 111/2011 and 125/2011 are guilty of suppression of material facts, not approaching the Court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the process of the Court? Held that:- Writ petition No. 111/2011 was based upon falsehood, was abuse of the process of court and was driven by malice and political vendetta. Thus, while dismissing this petition, we impose exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lacs upon the next friend, costs being payable to respondent no.6. The next friend in Writ Petition No. 125/2011 had approached the court with unclean hands, without disclosing complete facts and misusing the judicial process. In fact, he filed the petition without any proper authority, in fact and in law. Thus, this petition is also dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs for abuse of the process of the court and/or for such other offences that they are found to have committed, which shall be payable to the three petitioners produced before the High Court, i.e. Ms. Kirti Singh, Dr. Balram Singh and Ms. Sushila @ Mohini Devi. On the basis of the affidavit filed by the Director General of Police, U.P., statement of the three petitioners in the Writ Petition, CBI’s stand before the Court, its report and the contradictory stand taken by the next friend in Writ Petition No.111/2011, we, prima facie, are of the view that the allegations against the respondent no.6 in regard to the alleged incident of rape on 3rd December, 2006 and the alleged detention of the petitioners, are without substance and there is not even an iota of evidence before the Court to validly form an opinion to the contrary. In fact, as per the petitioners (allegedly detained persons), they were never detained by any person at any point of time. The CBI shall continue the investigation in furtherance to the direction of the High Court against petitioner in Writ Petition No. 111/2011 and all other persons responsible for the abuse of the process of Court, making false statement in pleadings, filing false affidavits and committing such other offences as the Investigating Agency may find during investigation. The CBI shall submit its report to the court of competent jurisdiction as expeditiously as possible and not later than six months from the date of passing of this order. Issues Involved:1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Transfer of Writ Petition.2. Abuse of the Process of Court.3. Locus Standi of the Petitioners.4. Imposition of Costs and Rewards.Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice and Transfer of Writ Petition:The appellant contended that the impugned order dated 7th March, 2011, was passed without adequate opportunity for the appellant to present his case, violating the principles of natural justice. The transfer of Writ Petition No. 111/2011 to the Division Bench was done without issuing notice to the appellant. The absence of notice and non-grant of adequate hearing caused serious prejudice to the appellant. The court noted that compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem is essential for judicial and quasi-judicial functioning. The record did not clearly show that notice was given to the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 111/2011, raising doubts about whether the appellant had a fair opportunity to present his case. The transfer of Writ Petition No. 111/2011 by the Division Bench without the Chief Justice's order was deemed lacking administrative judicial propriety.2. Abuse of the Process of Court:The court examined whether the petitioners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 111/2011 and 125/2011 were guilty of suppressing material facts, not approaching the court with clean hands, and thereby abusing the process of the court. The court stated that litigants must approach the court with full disclosure of facts and clean hands. The appellant, Kishore Samrite, was found to have filed Writ Petition No. 111/2011 based on vague, uncertain, and incomplete averments, withholding the fact that an earlier writ petition on the same matter had been dismissed. The appellant made irresponsible statements without verifying facts and acted as next friend without knowing the petitioners. Similarly, respondent No. 8, Gajendra Pal Singh, filed Writ Petition No. 125/2011 without proper authority and made false averments. Both petitioners were found to have abused the process of the court and misused judicial process.3. Locus Standi of the Petitioners:The court examined the locus standi of the petitioners, determining that both the appellant and respondent No. 8 were total strangers to the three mentioned petitioners and had no interest in the outcome of the litigation. The court emphasized that a person bringing a petition must have some direct or indirect interest in the outcome or act on behalf of someone under a recognized disability. Both petitioners were found to have no locus standi to approach the High Court in the manner they did, as they made false averments and withheld true facts.4. Imposition of Costs and Rewards:The court found that the imposition of heavy costs upon the appellant by the High Court was not called for in the facts and circumstances of the case, as the court was dealing with a petition for habeas corpus, not a suit for damages. The manner in which the costs were ordered to be disbursed was also not endorsed. The court modified the judgment, imposing exemplary costs of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant and respondent No. 8 for abuse of the process of the court, payable to respondent No. 6 and the three petitioners produced before the High Court, respectively. The court also directed the CBI to continue the investigation against the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 111/2011 and submit its report within six months.Conclusion:The appeal was disposed of with the court modifying the judgment under appeal, dismissing both writ petitions with exemplary costs and directing further investigation by the CBI. The court emphasized the importance of approaching the court with clean hands and not abusing the judicial process.