Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11499-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23917 of 2024 Petitioner :- Tarun Kurmi @ Govinda And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Namdev Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Second Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents. 3. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 7.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 1151 of 2024, under Sections 74, 352, 115(2), 310(2), 351(2) and 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station Baradari, District Bareilly. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case. 4. Learned A.G.A. as well as counsel for the informant raised an objection that the petitioners have not approached to the Court with clean hands as there is deliberate attempt of suppressing the criminal antecedents. 5. On the previous date, the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners for enabling him to explain criminal antecedent of all the petitioners. While filing second supplementary affidavit, criminal antecedents of the petitioners has been averred in detail. We are surprised that against the first petitioner, there are 11 criminal antecedents since 2008. Against the second petitioners, there are 10 criminal antecedents since 2005 onwards. Against the petitioner no. 3, there are 7 cases of identical nature. Today, when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the informant has also placed another FIR of the year 2019, which is not described while filing second supplementary affidavit. 6. The petitioner must approach to the Court with clean hand with full description of previous criminal antecedents. This omission cannot be accepted that the same is innocently being made but as a deliberate design to get some reprieve from the writ court on the incorrect statement of fact. The said omission or incorrect narration cannot be accepted as innocent case not to provide complete description of the previous criminal antecedents. 7. Hon'ble Apex Court, while considering the case of State of Uttaranchal v. Balwant Singh Chaufal & others, AIR 2010 SC 255, had held that writ jurisdiction may not be misused and abused by the unscrupulous litigants. Hon'ble Apex Court had also considered in Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India 2006 (6) SCC 120, wherein the Apex Court had held that it is trite law that so as to enable the court to refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, when the material facts are suppressed. This Court as well as Hon'ble Apex Court had been repeatedly held that filing a petition or an application with false affidavit was the basis for initiation of an action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons are required to be punished. 8. It is settled in law that jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is an equity jurisdiction. One must approach the court with clean hands, clean heart, clean mind and clean objective and person, who has suppressed the material fact, is not entitled for adjudication on merits. As per settled law, the party, who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226, is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. The legal maxim "Jure naturae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem", means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. Wide jurisdiction of the court should not become a source of abuse of the process of law by the disgruntled litigant. Careful exercise is also necessary to ensure that the litigation is genuine, not motivated by extraneous considerations and imposes an obligation upon the litigant to disclose the true facts and approach the court with clean hands. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, even though we are inclined to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost but on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners who is a young promising Advocate, the cost is removed. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 23.1.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad