HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Hon’ble Ramesh Sinha, J. Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.
MISC. BENCH No. 10331 of 2021; 27.7.2021
Surjeet Kumar
Vs.
State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home. Lko Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Mishra; Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Raj Mani Dubey,Vina Gupta
1. Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Singh, learned A.G.A. for the respondent-State and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, Surjeet Kumar, with the following prayers:-
“(i) a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the First Information Report registered vide Case Crime No.14/2021 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at P.S. Motiganj, District Gonda contained as Annexure No.1 to the memo of writ petition.
ii. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties No.2 and 3 not to arrest or harass the Petitioner in the pursuance of the First Information Report registered vide Case Crime No.14/2021 under Section 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. at P.S. Motiganj district Gonda, contained as Annexure No.1 during the pendency of this Writ Petition in this Hon’ble Court”
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition and has argued that earlier the petitioner by showing his name as ?Surjeet Kumar Chaturvedi? and co-accused Amarjeet have approached this Court by filing Misc. Bench No. 2924 of 2021 : Surjeet Kumar Chaturvedi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, challenging the F.I.R., which is impugned in the instant writ petition, and this Court, vide order dated 02.02.2021, dismissed the writ petition but by concealing this fact and in a very finesse way, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition by showing his name as ?Surjeet Kumar?. He argued that Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 provides that, where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to move a second application on the same fact, therefore, the present second writ petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable and the same be dismissed with heavy costs as the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition by concealing the fact of dismissal of his first writ petition for the same cause of action. He also pointed out that by concealing the aforesaid facts, the petitioner has also obtained an interim order dated 10.05.2021 from a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which reads as under :-
“Case is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State and perused the record.
Issue notice to complainant/opposite party No.4.
By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of impugned First Information Report dated 20.01.2021 lodged at F.I.R./Case Crime No.14 of 2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC , P.S. Motiganj, District Gonda.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is an outgoing pradhan. Impugned F.I.R. has been lodged out of political vengeance. In the inquiry held by the concerning authorities, the allegations made in the F.I.R. were not found correct.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the record however, without expressing any opinion on merits of the matter, we provide that till filling of the police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., or till any cogent evidence is found, whichever is earlier, petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. number. However, the petitioner will co-operate with the investigation.”
4. On a query being made regarding filing of the two successive writ petitions for the same cause of action by the petitioner by showing his name incorrectly earlier, learned counsel for the petitioner could not give satisfactory reply for filing of the same. However, he submits that he had no knowledge about filing of the earlier writ petition and tendered his unconditional apology for filing the present petition on behalf of the petitioner.
5. In order to appreciate the rival submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA, we deem it appropriate to reproduce the relief as sought in earlier writ petition by the petitioner showing his name as Surjeet Kumar Chaturvedi i.e. writ petition No. 2924 (M/B) of 2021 : Surjeet Kumar Chaturvedi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, which reads as under :-
“i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned First Information Report lodged by the Opposite Party No. 4 on 20.01.2021, registered at Case Crime No.-14/2021, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., at Police Station Motiganj, District Gonda, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition, in the interest of justice.
ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the opposite parties not to arrest the petitioner on the basis of the impugned First Information Report, as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.
iii. Issue any other writ other order or direction which this Hon?ble Court may deem, fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
iv. Allow the writ petition with cost.”
5. From perusal of the reliefs as sought in the instant writ petition by the petitioner showing his name as ?Surjeet Kumar? and the reliefs as sought in earlier writ petition i.e. writ petition No. 2924 (M/B) of 2021 showing his name as ?Surjeet Kumar Chaturvedi?, it transpires that the reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions are identical in nature, hence in view of the Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952, the instant writ petition is not maintainable.
6. It is relevant to mention here that in para-1 of the instant writ petition, the petitioner himself on oath has stated as under :
“That the Petitioner declares that this is First Writ Petition on the subject matter before this Hon’ble Court. No other Writ Petition has been filed before this Hon’ble Court including the Court at Allahabad. It is further submitted and declared that no Caveat has been received by the Petitioner, which is the Subject matter of this Writ Petition.”
7. Form perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is crystal clear that the petitioner has knowingly and willingly has concealed the fact that he has filed earlier a writ petition i.e. writ petition No. 2924 (M/B) of 2021, for the same cause of action.
8. In Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar Anr. : AIR 1997 SC 1005, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that filing successive misconceived and frivolous applications for clarification, modification or for seeking a review of the order interferes with the purity of the administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. Such a litigant must be dealt with a very heavy hand.
9. In Sabia Khan ors. Vs. State of U.P. Ors., : (1999) 1 SCC 271, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that filing totally misconceived petition amounts to abuse of the process of the Court and such litigant is not required to be dealt with lightly.
10. The Full Bench of this Court in Surya Deo Mishra Vs. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary and others : (2006) IILLJ 583 All, has observed as under :-
“The rules of this Court clearly prohibit such course of action. Rule 7 of Chapter XXII of the Allahabad High Court Rules 1952 provides that, where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to move a second application on the same fact. Even if the petitioner has withdrawn the earlier writ petition without a prayer to file a fresh writ petition, a second writ petition for the same cause of action is not maintainable. This cardinal rule of public policy to discourage multiplicity of proceedings, also incorporated in Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principles whereof are also applicable to writ proceedings, is too well settled to merit any elaboration. For this, it will be sufficient to refer to the judgments in B.N. Singh v. State of U.P. 1979 ALJ 1184 Dr. Ramji Dwivedi v. State of and Ors. equivalent to 1983 UPLBEC 426; Niranjan Rai v.District Inspector of Schools (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1416; Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana ; Harish Chandra Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors. (1967) 3 UPLBEC 1840 (DB); Keshav Tripathi v. State of U.N.P. and Ors. 1997 ALJ 28 (DB) and S.L. Bathla v. State Bank of India (1999) 1 UPLBEC 233. This rule was succinctly explained in State of U.P. and Anr. v. Labh Chand by the Apex Court in paragraph 20 as follows:-
20. When a Judge of Single Judge Bench of a High Court is required to entertain a second writ petition of a person on a matter, he cannot, as a matter of course, entertain such petition, if an earlier writ petition of the same person on the same matter had been dismissed already by another Single Judge Bench or a Division Bench of the same High Court, even if such dismissal was on the ground of laches or on the ground of non availing of alternative remedy. Second writ petition cannot be so entertained not because the learned Single Judge has no jurisdiction to entertain the same, but because entertaining of such a second writ petition would render the order of the same court dismissing the earlier writ petition redundant and nugatory, although not reviewed by it in exercise of the recognized power. Besides, if a learned Single Judge could entertain a second writ petition of a person respecting a matter on which his first writ petition was dismissed in limine by another learned Single Judge or a Division Bench of the same court, it would encourage an unsuccessful writ petition to go on filing writ petition after writ petition in the same matter in the same High Court, and have it brought up for consideration before one Judge and another. Such a thing, if is allowed to happen, it could result in giving full scope and encouragement to an unscrupulous litigant to abuse the process of the High Court exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in that any order of any bench of such court refusing to entertain a writ petition could be ignored by him with impunity and relief sought in the same matter by filing a fresh writ petition. This would only lead to introduction of disorder, confusion and chaos relating to exercise of writ jurisdiction by Judges of the High Court for there could be no finality for an order of the court refusing to entertain a writ petition. It is why, the rule of judicial practice and procedure that a second writ petition shall not be entertained by the High Court on the subject matter respecting which the first writ petition of the same person was dismissed by the same court even if the order of such dismissal was in limine, be it on the ground of laches or on the ground of non-exhaustion of alternative remedy, has come to the accepted and followed as salutary rule in exercise of writ jurisdiction of courts.”
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the aforesaid dictum of the Apex Court and the Full Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with an exemplary cost looking to the conduct of the petitioner.
12. In view of the above, we dismiss the writ petition with an exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/-. Interim order dated 10.05.2021 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is hereby vacated. The petitioner is directed to deposit Rs.25,000/- within one month from today in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda, failing which, the same shall be recovered from the arrears of land revenue of the petitioner. On receipt of the said cost, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda shall ensure that out of Rs.25,000/-, Rs. 15,000/- shall be given to the complainant and rest of the amount i.e. Rs.10,000/- shall be transmitted in the account of the District Legal Services Authority, Gonda.
13. The Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda for information and compliance.
14. The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
15. The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.