Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:23502-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2945 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- In Person Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard the petitioner, who appeared in person and Sri P.K. Malviya, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 30.01.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0015 of 2025 under Sections 352(2) of B.N.S., Police Station Nagar, District-Basti. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case. 3. Learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the present writ petition has been preferred with concealment of material fact and only on this account, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. He has placed reliance on categorical averment, which is made in para-12 of the writ petition, wherein it is claimed that "the petitioner is not involved in any other case except to this case and there is no criminal history against the petitioner." The aforesaid averment is disputed by learned A.G.A. on the instructions, wherein it is disclosed that the petitioner is having criminal history of 5 cases, which is not divulged in the writ petition. He submits that only to get some reprieve in the present proceeding, the criminal antecedents had deliberately been suppressed, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 4. Confronted with this situation, petitioner submits that at this stage he is not in a position to defend the categorical averment made in para-12 of the writ petition. 5. Heard rival submission and perused the record. 6. On perusal of para 12 of the writ petition it transpires that categorical fact has been narrated wherein the petitioner claims that he has no criminal history. Innocently, the said categorical statement of fact cannot be made by an applicant, who has criminal history of several cases. In most of the cases, we find that the claim is set up in the body of the writ petitions on oath but later on, once an objection is raised by the State/respondents regarding criminal history of the petitioner(s), then innocently an affidavit is filed, whereby explanation of the criminal antecedents is given. It cannot be accepted in such fact, wherein the applicant on oath has stated in the writ petition that he is innocent and there is no criminal history against him at all. Such discrepancies cannot be allowed to be easily rectified later on through an affidavit at the time of hearing, whenever an objection is raised by the State/respondents. 7. The applicant must approach the Court with clean hands and with full description of the criminal antecedents. This omission cannot be accepted on the ground that the same is being made innocently, in fact the same seems to be a deliberately designed method to get some reprieve from the writ court on the incorrect statement of facts. The said omission or incorrect narration or not to provide complete description of the criminal antecedents cannot be accepted as an innocent case. 8. 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 in Arunima Baruah vs. Union of India 2006 (6) SCC 120, has 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 repeatedly held that filing a petition or an application with false affidavit could be the basis for initiation of an action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons are required to be punished. 9. It is settled 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 a 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. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 18.2.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad