Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62985-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7321 of 2025 Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gauri Shanker Mishra,Rahul Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 27.12.2024 passed by Inspector/Investigating Officer, Crime Branch, U.P. Police, Kaushambi/respondent no. 5 directing the respondent no. 4 to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of FIR dated 5.12.2023 bearing Case Crime No. 298 of 2023, under Sections 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Sandipan Ghat, District Kaushambi. Further prayer has been made not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned order. 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. There is no disclosure of previous criminal antecedents of five cases and 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. Reliance has been placed upon Munnesh v. State of U.P. [SLP(Cri) No. 1400 of 2025, dt. 3.4.2025] 4. Confronted with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in case the Court provides an opportunity, he may file an affidavit explaining all the cases mentioned in the criminal history. 5. Heard rival submission and perused the record. 6. 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 petitioner does not have any criminal history to his 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. 7. The applicants 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. 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 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. 9. 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. 10.Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, initially we had inclined to dismiss the writ petition with exemplary cost but on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the cost is removed. 11.The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the remedy as available in law. (Anil Kumar-X,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.) Order Date :- 24.4.2025 A.K.Srivastava Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad