Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:31766-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4137 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohd. Shakib And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satya Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents and Shri Anurag Yadav, learned counsel for the informant. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 04.07.2023 registered as Case Crime No.180 of 2023 under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Jaunpur. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioners have no complicity in the instant case. The whole prosecution story is totally false and frivolous. He submits that earlier the FIR was challenged in Writ Petition No.11107/2023 (Mohd. Shakib and other vs. State of U.P. and others). The same was entertained by the Division Bench on 04.08.2023 and matter was referred to the Mediation as there were ample chance of settlement. Later-on the mediation has failed and a report is submitted on 10.10.2023 by the Mediation and Reconciliation Centre indicating therein "Mediation Completed. No agreement." Considering the said situation, this Division Bench vide order dated 12.11.2024 disposed of the writ petition with observation that cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners, liberty is accorded to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy in accordance with law and interim order was also discharged. He submits that in the said proceedings final report is submitted on 15.05.2024, which was protested by the informant on 25.09.2024 and finally direction was issued for further investigation in the matter on 31.01.2025. He contends that the present writ petition is maintainable and relief is liable to be accorded to the petitioners. 4. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the informant have raised 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. The first petitioner is having criminal history of 08 cases and second petitioner is having criminal history of 02 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. Learned counsel for the informant apprised to the Court that the petitioners have not paid the entire sale consideration and only a cheque of Rs.15 lacs have been given, which was also taken back by them. 5. Heard rival submission and perused the record. 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. Even the record prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. 9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, no equity prevail in favour of the petitioners, which warrant interference by this Court. 10. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to invoke the remedy as available in law. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 5.3.2025 A. Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad