Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:68070-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5721 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Prasad And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arjun Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri P. 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 17.02.2025 registered as Case Crime No.42 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) BNS 2023, Police Station Hanamant Vihar, District Kanpur Nagar. 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-29 of the writ petition, wherein it is claimed that "the petitioners are not previous convicts. The petitioners have no criminal history. The antecedents of petitioners are crystal clear." The said factual situation is disputed by learned A.G.A. based on the instructions, wherein it is disclosed that the second petitioner is having criminal history of two cases, third petitioner is having criminal history of eight cases and fourth petitioner is having criminal history of four 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. He has placed reliance upon judgment of Apex Court dated 03.04.2025 passed Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 1400 of 2025; Muneesh vs. State of U.P. and others. 4. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that in case the Court provides an opportunity, he may file an affidavit explaining all the cases mentioned in the criminal history. Therefore, at this stage he fairly concedes to the extent that he is not in a position to defend the categorical averment made in para-29 of the writ petition. 6. Heard rival submission and perused the record. 7. Surprisingly, in most of the cases, we find that the claim has been set up in the body of the writ petition on oath that the petitioners do not have any criminal history to their credit but later on, once an objection is raised from the State side regarding previous criminal history, then innocently it is prayed to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the criminal antecedent of the petitioners. It cannot be accepted in such fact, wherein the applicants on oath has stated in the writ petition and claimed that they are innocent and there is no criminal history against them at all. Said discrepancy cannot be easily rectified later on through an affidavit at the time of hearing, once the objection is raised from the State. 8. The applicant 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to accord any relief to the petitioners. 12. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that present writ petition may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to avail the remedy as available in law. 13. The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed with liberty to the petitioners to invoke the remedy as available in law. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 30.4.2025 A. Pandey Digitally signed by :- ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad