Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7751 of 2010 Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Gayakvad Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- M.S. Pandey Respondent Counsel :- Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Imtiyaz Murtaza,J.
Hon’ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J.
Impugned herein is the F.I.R. dated 26.12.2009 lodged at case crime
No. NIL/448 of 2009 under section 41/411 IPC P.S.Kydganj District
Allahabad. The said F.I.R was lodged by the police with the allegations
that on the date the police force was on the qui vive in the area in
connection with law and order and in the meantime, informer gave
information that the accused with a stolen motor cycle was about to
come via Bahrana crossing from old Yamuna Bridge. Believing the
information of the informer, the police started checking vehicles. It is
further alleged that after a short while, the accused person riding a red
motor cycle was seen coming. On being beaconed by the informer, the
police became alert but in the meantime, the accused took about turn
and tried to speed away but he was chased on a police jeep who was
overtaken by the police and was apprehended near Minto Park tri
junction. On interrogation, he confessed to have stolen the motor cycle
from G.R.P. colony. It is also alleged that he was wanted in another
criminal case lodged at case crime no. 386 of 2009 under section
457/380/411 IPC.
In the course of arguments, it transpired that the petitioner had already
preferred a writ petition for the self same relief and challenging the self
same F.I.R as done in the instant case. On being pointed out, the earlier
file bearing Criminal writ petition no. 1702 of 2010 was summoned
from the office it transpired that the said writ petition was dismissed by
means of order dated 3.2.2010 by this Bench. When Sri M.S.Pandey
representing the petitioner was confronted, he expressed his ignorance
stating that he was not the counsel in that case and further that he had
no knowledge nor he was intimated by the petitioner that he had filed
the earlier writ petition which culminated in being dismissed.
It would appear from a perusal of the said writ petition that earlier the
petitioner was represented by Sri R.P.Misra, Advocate. Sri R.P.Misra
Advocate has not turned up to have his say in the matter.
Be that as it may, it would clearly transpire that petitioner in both the
petitions is common on both the petition namely,Sushil with a finer
distinction that in the earlier petition, the petitioner was named as Sushil
Gaikwad but in the later petition, his name is described as Sushil Kumar
Gayakwad.. By this reckoning, it leaves no room for doubt that the
present petition has been filed by concealing the fact that earlier petition
was also filed on the self same ground and for the self same relief and
the same was dismissed. The explanation put forth does not appear to be
plausible and it appears to us to be a fit case in which cost must be
inflicted for concealing the fact which is nothing but tantamounts to
abusing the process of the Court.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. As observed above, it is, besides
being abuse of the process of the court, is a fraud played upon the court
and therefore, it is a fit case in which exemplary cost must be imposed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case and regard being had to the
fact that no plausible explanation is forthcoming, and that it is a gross
abuse of the process of the Court on the part of the petitioner, we
quantify the cost at Rs. 20000/- on petitioner which it is directed shall
be deposited at the end of the Registrar General of this Court within a
week. It is prescribed as a consequence that in case the petitioner fails to
deposit the cost within the time frame as aforesaid, the same shall be
recovered accordingly as arrears of land revenue by referring the matter
to the appropriate authority competent in this regard. It is also
postulated that the amount so recovered shall be funnelled to the corpus
of U.P Legal Aid Service for being utilised there.
Order Date :- 10.5.2010
MH