Rajji and Another vs State of Punjab and Others

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present petition has been filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to respondents No. 2 and 3 not harass or interfere in the peaceful married life of the petitioners as they have solemnized marriage contrary to the wishes of private respondents No. 4 to 6 and are apprehending threat at their instance. Notice of motion in this case was issued on 01.07.2013 and in response to notice of motion, reply has been filed by respondent No. 5, who is the mother of petitioner No. 1.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 submits that the petitioner No. 1 is in illegal custody of petitioner No. 2 as he has enticed and kidnapped her from the custody of private respondents. An FIR No. 90 dated 28.06.2013 has already been registered under Sections 363/366-A IPC against petitioner No. 2 at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar Rural. It has also been mentioned in the reply that the date of birth of petitioner No. 1 is 05.08.1997. A copy of certificate issued by the Head Master of Government Elementary School, Manjh has been placed on record with the reply.

On perusal of documents and the averments in the petition, it appears that the petitioner No. 1 is major and her date of birth is not known as she is illiterate. Similarly, petitioner No. 2 is stated to be more than 19 years of age and an affidavit in support thereof has also been filed before this Court, whereas, petitioner No. 1 being minor neither can file this petition nor can file an affidavit but the same has been shown just to get favourable orders. Petitioners have not only concealed the material facts but have also tried to project such a picture before this Court while filing this petition that a marriage has been solemnized against the wishes of private respondents and they are now giving threat to them. Even at the time of issuance of notice of motion, a query was put to learned counsel for the petitioners to verify about the date of birth, it was insisted that it is a correct date of birth as stated by the petitioners and because of that reason only, notice of motion was issued and no interim protection was provided to them.

In view of the facts as mentioned above, the petitioners have filed this petition by concealing the material facts from this Court and not only they have tried to mislead the Court but an affidavit has also been filed by petitioner No. 1, who is minor, which is not maintainable. The petitioners are not entitled for discretionary relief as prayed for in the present petition and hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

It is well settled that when a litigant seeks discretionary relief from the Court, it is the bounden duty of the litigant to place before the Court all relevant facts. He/she must not conceal from the Court the material facts which may be germane to the decision of the controversy. If, at any stage, it is found that the petitioner has concealed the material facts from the Court, the Court would be justified in not hearing the petitioner as has been held in the judgment Richa Sharma @ Happy Vs. State of Punjab,

Hon''ble the Supreme Court has made observations under the similar circumstances when the material facts were concealed and it has been held that a person who does not disclose all material facts, has no right to be heard on merits of his grievance. The observations made by Hon''ble the Apex Court in case Oswal Fats and Oils Limited Vs. Additional Commissioner (Administration), Bareilly Division, Bareilly and Others, , are reproduced as under:-

It is settled law that a person who approaches the Court for grant of relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn obligation to candidly disclose all the material/important facts, which have bearing on the adjudication of the issues raised in the case. In other words, he owes a duty to the court to bring out all the facts and refrain from concealing/suppressing any material fact within his knowledge or which he could have known by exercising diligence expected of a person of ordinary prudence. If he is found guilty of concealment of material facts or making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of justice, the court not only has the right but a duty to deny relief to such person. In one of the earliest decisions on the subject i.e., - R.V. Kensington Income Tax Commissioner (1917) 1 KB 486, Viscount Reading, Chief Justice of the Divisional Court observed:

Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the applicant was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion, careful examination will be made of the facts as they are ad as they have been sated in the applicant''s affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that this Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.

This Court and different High Courts have repeatedly invoked and applied the rule that a person who does not disclose all material facts has no right to be heard on the merits of his grievance - S State of Haryana and Others Vs. Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. and Another, Dr. Vijay Kumar Kathuria Vs. State of Haryana and Others, Welcom Hotel and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, , G. Narayanaswamy Reddy (dead) by L.Rs. and another Vs. Government of Karnataka and another, S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and others, , Agricultural and Processed Food Products Vs. Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. and others, Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Muneesh Suneja, Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, Sunil Poddar and Others Vs. Union Bank of India, K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, , G. Jayashree and Others Vs. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Others, decided on 3.12.2009.

In view of the facts as mentioned above, the present petition is dismissed.