2025:HHC:19170 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 532 of 2018 Reserved on: 27.05.2025 Date of Decision: 20.06.2025. Rajesh Kumar Khalait ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G.C. Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Meera Devi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Prashant Sen, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge “What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.” William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet The petitioner in the present petition does not agree with the famous bard and seeks to take advantage of the confusion in the names. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:19170 2. The present petition has been filed for quashing of judgment and other proceedings initiated against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 417, 418, 419, 465, 468, 471, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), registered against one Rajinder Singh son of Surat Ram and others based on the FIR No. 4 of 2006, dated 31.3.2006. It is asserted that the police arrayed one Rajinder Kumar, son of Surat Ram, as an accused, which is incorrect because Surat Ram had no son named Rajinder Kumar. The accused, including Rajinder Kumar, son of Surat Ram, were convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment and pay a fine. The petitioner is Rajesh Kumar Khalait son of Sh. Surat Singh, but he was convicted as Rajinder Kumar son of Sh. Surat Ram. The petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, and the sentence was suspended subject to furnishing of personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹30,000/-. The charges were framed against Rajinder Kumar, but these were signed as Rajesh Kumar. The name of Rajinder Kumar did not appear in the proceedings. The petitioner submitted his bond in the name of Rajesh Khalait, but these were not accepted by the Court because Rajesh Kumar was not an accused. No sentence was passed 3 2025:HHC:19170 against him. Non-bailable warrants were issued in the name of Rajinder Kumar alias Rajesh Khalait. Petitioner filed a petition before this court, and a direction was issued to the learned Trial Court to accept the bail bonds being furnished by the petitioner. The proceedings in the name of Rajinder Kumar, son of Surat Ram, are illegal and void because Surat Ram had no son named Rajinder Kumar. The petitioner is the only son of Surat Ram. The petitioner signed all the documents before the learned Trial Court as Rajesh Kumar Khalait. No person by the name of Rajinder Kumar existed in Village Moti Bagh, Post Office Markop, Tehsil Chopal. The identification of the petitioner was never made, which vitiated the entire proceedings. The vehicle was owned by Mohi Ram and not by Surat Singh. The continuation of proceedings in the name of Rajinder Kumar alias Rajesh Khalait is the gross abuse of the process of law. The petitioner is being wrongly arrested under the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court qua the petitioner be set aside. 3. The petition was opposed by filing a reply asserting that the present petition is not maintainable. The petitioner 4 2025:HHC:19170 concealed during the investigation of FIR No. 61 of 1996, dated 11.7.1996, registered at Police Station, Chopal, that he was driving the vehicle because he had no valid driving licence with him. Subsequently, an inquiry was initiated as per the orders passed by this Court, and it was established that the petitioner had shown Rajinder Kumar, son of Paras Ram, as the driver of the offending vehicle. The involvement of RLA was also found, and a charge sheet was filed before the Court. It was found during the investigation that Rajinder Kumar alias Rajesh alias Raju, son of Surat Ram, was driving the vehicle without any valid driving licence. The petitioner furnished his bail bonds in the name of Rajesh, son of Surat Ram. His father, Surat Ram, was also arrayed as an accused, and he died during the pendency of the proceedings. The petitioner claimed to be Rajinder Kumar, son of Surat Ram. He mentioned his name as Rajinder Kumar, son of Surat Ram, in the bail bonds furnished under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. He was duly identified by Mr. Manmohan, Advocate. The petitioner represented himself to be Rajinder Kumar to defraud the Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 5 2025:HHC:19170 4. A rejoinder denying the contents of the reply and affirming those of the petition was filed. It was alleged that the petitioner was never known as Rajinder Singh, which is evident from the documents attached to the rejoinder. 5. A sur-rejoinder on behalf of the respondent denying the contents of the rejoinder was also filed. 6. I have heard Mr. G.C. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Meera Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State. 7. Mr. G.C. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the proceedings were initiated against Rajinder Kumar, son of Surat Ram. The name of Rajesh Kumar was nowhere mentioned. Rajinder Kumar was charge-sheeted. His statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded, and he was convicted. Warrants were wrongly issued in the name of Rajesh Kumar. Surat Ram had no son named Rajinder Kumar, and the proceedings were initiated and concluded against a non- existent person. The liberty of the petitioner is being deprived by the proceedings conducted against a non-existent person. 6 2025:HHC:19170 Hence, he prayed that the proceedings against Rajinder Kumar be quashed. 8. Mr. Prashant Sen, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent-State, submitted that the petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court and represented himself to be Rajinder Kumar. He faced the trial, and when the judgment was passed against him, he came with the plea that he was Rajesh Kumar and not Rajinder Kumar. He defrauded the Court and should not be allowed to take advantage of his fraud. He prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. This case has a chequered history and shows the extent to which the litigants can go to subvert the process of law. This Court, while deciding the FAO No. 119 of 1999, titled Mohi Ram Vs. Surat Ram, decided on 8.8.2005, noticed that the driving licence was, on the face of it, forged, and the name of Inder Singh was changed to Rajinder Singh. The photographs also appeared to have been changed later on. This was done with the connivance of the owner to shift the burden to the Insurance 7 2025:HHC:19170 Company. Rajinder Singh, son of Surat Singh, grandson of the owner, was driving the vehicle and not Rajesh Singh, son of Paras Ram. Therefore, the direction was issued to the Secretary, Transport, to the Government of Himachal Pradesh that the licence should be renewed strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. 11. The investigation was conducted in the matter after registering the FIR No.04 of 2006, dated 31.3.2006. The police filed a charge sheet against Rajinder Kumar, son of Surat Ram, resident of Village Moti Bag, P.O. Markop, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla and other persons. The order sheet of the learned Trial Court shows that the accused Surat Ram and Rajesh appeared before the Court with Ms. Sheetal Khimta, Advocate on 16.1.2010. They furnished personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹10,000/- each. This bond was furnished in the name of Rajesh Kumar, son of Surat Ram Khalait, resident of Moti Bagh, Post Office Markop, Tehsil Chopal, District Shimla, H.P. 12. The order sheet dated 3.7.2010 shows that none of the accused was present. An application seeking exemption from personal appearance was filed on behalf of Surat Ram, Rajinder 8 2025:HHC:19170 and Nek Ram through their counsel Varun, Advocate. Accused Hans Raj and Rajinder Singh were not present on 5.9.2012, and an application seeking their exemption was filed, which was allowed by the Court. Accused Rajinder Singh was again absent on 4.7.2013, and an application seeking his exemption from personal appearance was filed through Sh. Bhup Singh, Advocate, which was allowed. Accused Rajinder Singh was again absent on 16.9.2013, and an application was filed seeking his exemption by Manmohan Mekta, Advocate. The name of Rajinder Singh, son of Surat Ram, was mentioned in this application. An application for the exemption of Surat Ram and Rajinder Singh was filed on 13.9.2013. Another application for the exemption of Surat Ram and Rajinder Singh, Bal Krishan and Hans Raj was filed on 14.10.2013. 13. An application seeking exemption was filed on behalf of Surat Singh and Rajesh on 22.2.2014 through counsel Sh. Varun Dev, Advocate. An application for the exemption of Rajinder Singh was filed on 27.6.2015. Another application for the exemption of Surat Ram and Rajinder Singh was submitted on 20.7.2015. A similar application was filed for the exemption of Surat Ram and Rajinder Singh on 23.9.2015. Applications 9 2025:HHC:19170 seeking exemption for Rajinder, son of Surat Ram, were submitted on 31.5.2016 and 4.7.2016. Applications for the exemption of Rajinder Singh, son of the late Sh. Surat Ram, were filed on 8.8.2016 and 1.7.2017. An application for the exemption of Rajesh, son of Surat Ram, was filed on 11.7.2017. An application for the exemption of Rajinder Singh son of Surat Ram, was submitted on 17.11.2017. Applications for the exemption of Rajinder son of Surat Ram were filed on 12.4.2016, 17.04.2018 and 24.03.2018. All these applications were allowed by the learned Trial Court. 14. The record also shows that the charges were framed against the accused Rajinder, son of Surat Ram, on 9.3.2011, which are duly signed. The statement of Rajinder, son of Surat Ram, was recorded on 22.12.201 under Section 313 of Cr.PC, which was duly signed by him. 15. An application for suspension of sentence on behalf of Rajinder (Rajesh) was filed. Personal bonds were furnished in the name of Rajinder alias Rajesh. Thus, the petitioner has represented to the learned Trial Court that he is Rajinder (Rajesh) or Rajinder alias Rajesh. He had also furnished the 10 2025:HHC:19170 personal bonds under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. in which the name of Rajesh Khalait, son of Surat Ram, was mentioned. Photographs affixed to both these bonds are the same. 16. It was undisputed in the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that the petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court as the son of Surat Ram. Various applications filed by him show that he had represented himself to be Rajesh Kumar, son of Surat Ram, and Rajinder Kumar, son of Surat Ram. He understood that the proceedings were initiated against him. He appeared before the learned Trial Court, furnished the bail bonds, put the signatures on the charge sheet, filed applications for exemption, sometimes describing himself to be Rajinder and sometimes as Rajesh. He furnished bonds under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. and after the conviction, got the sentence suspended under Section 389 of Cr.P.C., by describing himself to be Rajinder alias Rajesh. 17. The averments in the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. also show that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court, and the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court was suspended subject to furnishing of the 11 2025:HHC:19170 personal and surety bonds. When the surety bonds were presented before the learned Trial Court, the learned Trial Court refused to accept them and issued non-bailable warrants of arrest against Rajinder, son of Surat Ram. When the warrants were being executed against Rajinder alias Rajesh, son of Surat Ram, the petitioner came up with the plea that he is not Rajinder but Rajesh, no person by the name of Rajinder exists, and he was being wrongly arrested. Once he made a representation to the Court that he is Rajinder, son of Surat Ram, it is not open for him to say that he is not the person who had faced the trial and was convicted by the learned Trial Court. It was rightly submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner himself played a fraud upon the Court by representing himself to be Rajinder son of Surat Ram, Rajesh, Rajinder alias Rajesh, or Rajinder (Rajesh). Therefore, the plea put forth by him that the warrants issued against Rajinder alias Rajesh are bad in law and are liable to be quashed cannot be accepted. Acceptance of this plea will give a premium to the fraud played by the petitioner upon the Court. 18. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dalip Singh v. State of U.P. 2010 (2) SCC 114, that a new creed of 12 2025:HHC:19170 litigants has cropped up who do not have any respect for truth and shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. The Courts should evolve new rules to deal with such litigants and should not permit a premium on fraud. It was observed: - “1. For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life, i.e. “satya” (truth) and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre- Independence era, and the people used to feel proud to tell the truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, the post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. Materialism has overshadowed the old ethos, and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter in falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that 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.” 19. It was laid down in Rekha Sharad Ushir v. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 641, that a litigant who suppresses material facts or makes a false 13 2025:HHC:19170 statement cannot seek justice from the Court. His petition is liable to be thrown at the threshold. It was observed: - 11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court. In paragraph 5 of the decision of this Court in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath(1994) 1 SCC 1, it is held thus: “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, the 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 14 2025:HHC:19170 person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.” 20. Delhi High Court also held in Awaneesh Chandra Jha v. Anil Prasad Nanda, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1866 that dishonesty must not be permitted to bear fruit, and once fraud is proved, on advantage derived by a person has to be withdrawn. It was observed: - “60. The unquestioned legal position is that dishonesty must not be permitted to bear fruit; that collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive others of their rights would render a transaction void ab initio; that suppression of material documents would amount to fraud upon the court; that once fraud is proved, all advantages gained by the fraud can be taken away; and that every court has inherent powers to recall its orders obtained by fraud since such order is non est. This necessarily implies that at any stage of a proceedings, if it appears to a court that fraud is being played upon it, the court must not permit a litigant to obtain any benefit and must nip any such effort in the bud.” 21. It is unnecessary to multiply the judgments; however, the consistent view of the Courts is that a person cannot play fraud upon the Court and get away with it. Once a person plays a fraud upon the Court, he cannot derive any advantage from it. Permitting the litigant, like the petitioner, to make a representation before the Court and thereafter getting away with it will bring the whole judicial administration to a 15 2025:HHC:19170 halt, and it will encourage people to resort to all sorts of falsehoods to get the relief. This will pollute the stream of justice and erode the faith of the litigants, which is the foundation of the administration of justice. 22. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Punit Beriwala v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 983 that the inherent power should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection and should not be used routinely according to whims and caprice. It was observed: - “29. It is settled law that the power of quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exercised sparingly with circumspection, and while exercising this power, the Court must believe the averments and allegations in the complaint to be true and correct. It has been repeatedly held that, save in exceptional cases where non- interference would result in a miscarriage of justice, the Court and the judicial process should not interfere at the stage of investigation of offences. Extraordinary and inherent powers of the Court should not be used routinely according to its whims or caprice.” 23. In the present case, the petitioner had abused the process of the Court by making a false representation. Once he was convicted and sentenced, he tried to take advantage of his falsehood and fraud. This cannot be permitted in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 16 2025:HHC:19170 24. Therefore, there is no reason to exercise the inherent powers to quash the proceedings. Rather, it is a fit case where the learned Appellate Court should consider initiation of the proceedings for impersonation under Section 205 of the IPC against the petitioner. 25. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed, so also the miscellaneous application(s), if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 20th June, 2025 (Chander)