2025:HHC:27063 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MP(M) No. 1914 of 2025 Reserved on: 07.08.2025 Date of Decision: 11.08.2025. Vinod Kumar ...Applicant Versus State of H.P. ...Respondent Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Applicant : Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge Cr. MP(M) No. 1914 of 2025 The applicant/appellant has filed the present application for condonation of 41 days’ delay in filing the appeal. It has been asserted that the order dated 05.03.2021 was passed by the learned Trial Court during the lockdown period. The applicant/appellant was not aware of the proceedings pending before the learned Trial Court. He made his best efforts to attend the Court before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. He was not aware of the date of the hearing and was under the impression that there was no requirement for his appearance. He received a notice from the Court in April 2025 and came to know that his 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:27063 ) surety bond was forfeited to the State of Himachal Pradesh and recovery warrants were issued. Applicant/appellant applied for copies of the daily orders. He visited the office of learned counsel in the 2nd week of June, 2025 and handed over the documents to the learned counsel. Learned counsel advised him to bring the entire record. The applicant/appellant applied for the entire case file, which was provided on 30.06.2025. There is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal. The delay is neither intentional not deliberate but due the aforesaid reasons which is beyond his control. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 2. Mr. Jai Dev Thakur, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, submitted that the order was passed during the lockdown and the applicant/appellant was not aware of the pendency of the proceedings. Thus, he could not appear before the Court. He came to know about the pendency of the proceedings when the notice was received from the Court. Hence, he prayed that the present application be allowed and the 41 days delay in filing the appeal be condoned. 3. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that there is no reason for the condonation of the delay. The applicant/appellant was duly served by the Court, and he failed to appear without any reasonable cause. Hence, the learned 3 2025:HHC:27063 ) Trial Court was justified in imposing the penalty. He prayed that the present application be dismissed. 4. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 5. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 05.03.2021, after the lapse of more than 03 years and 04 months. Therefore, the plea that there is a delay of 41 days in filing the appeal is not correct. It has been mentioned in the memorandum of appeal that it is also filed against the order dated 19.03.2025. However, the order dated 19.03.2025 merely records that the amount could not be recovered by the Collector. Hence, bailable warrants were ordered to be issued to secure the presence of the applicant/appellant. It is not an appealable order under Section 449 of the Cr.PC. Therefore, the limitation cannot be counted from the said order, and the applicant has to explain the delay from the order dated 05.03.2021. 6. A perusal of the certified copies of the order sheets annexed to the main appeal shows that the non-bailable warrants of arrest were issued against the accused Prem Bahadur, which were returned with the report that he had left the address. Notice was issued to his surety to produce the accused. The order dated 05.01.2021, shows that two sureties, Vinod and Sanjeev of accused Prem Bahadur, were present in the Court and sought time to file the reply. The matter was adjourned for 4 2025:HHC:27063 ) 05.03.2021. When the matter was taken up on 05.03.2021, none were present. Hence, the learned Trial Court held that the surety had no reasonable cause for not producing the accused and forfeited the surety bond of ₹2,00,000/- furnished by him to the State of Himachal Pradesh. 7. The order sheets dated 05.01.2021, falsify the plea taken by the applicant/appellant in the application that he was not served and was not aware of the date of hearing. He was very much present in the Court and had sought time to file a reply, which was granted. He chose to remain absent on 05.03.2021, and the learned Trial Court had imposed the penalty of ₹2,00,000/- on that day. 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 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. 5 2025:HHC:27063 ) 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.” 8. 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 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 6 2025:HHC:27063 ) 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 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.” 9. 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.” 10. Hence, the application is liable to be dismissed on the short ground that the applicant has taken a false plea for condonation of delay. 11. It was asserted that a lockdown was imposed, and the applicant/appellant could not appear before the Court. This is factually 7 2025:HHC:27063 ) correct. The lockdown was imposed in the year 2020, and the restrictions were lifted w.e.f. 01st June, 2020. No notification showing the imposition of the lockdown in March 2021 was placed on record. Hence, the plea that the applicant/appellant was unable to appear before the Court due to the imposition of the lockdown cannot be accepted. 12. Therefore, the applicant/appellant has failed to establish any sufficient cause for the condonation of delay since 05.03.2021. Consequently, the present application fails, and the same is dismissed. CR.AST 7157 of 2025 In view of the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the proposed appeal is dismissed as barred by limitation. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 11th August 2025 (Shamsh Tabrez)