LexKISHORE SAMRITE versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 733 KISHORE SAMRITE v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Criminal Appeal No.1406 of 2012) OCTOBER 18, 2012 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.) CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: A B Art.226 - Petitions for a writ of habeas corpus -A/legation C that a political leader had illegally detained a girl and her parents - Held: From the specific averments made in both the writ petitions filed in 2011, it is clear that the so-called next friends in both the writ petitions have approached the court with falsehood, unclean hands and have misled the courts by 0 showing urgency and exigencies in relation to an incident of 3.12.2006, which according to all the three petitioners and the police was false, and have thus abused the process of court and misused the judicial process - They maliciously and with ulterior motives encroached upon the valuable time of the court and wasted public money - The false a/legations made E in the writ petitions have damaged and diminished the public image of the political leader concerned - The girl and her parents have been used by the persons who filed the writ petitions - Their reputation has suffered a serious set back and they were exposed to inconvenience of being dragged to court F - Exemplary...costs of Rs. 5 lacs each is imposed upon the next friends in both the writ petitions - Costs to be paid to the affected persons - Order of High Court imposing cost of Rs. 50 lacs on next friend in WP No. 111 of 2011 set aside - CBI shall continue the investigation in furtherance to the direction G of the High Court against the next friend in Writ Petition No. 11112011 and all other persons responsible for the abuse of the process of court, making false statement in pleadings, 733 H 734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 9 S.C.R. A filing false affidavits and committing such other offences as the investigating agency may find during investigation - Administration of justice - Abuse of process of court - Administrative law - Natural justice. Art. 226 - Petition for a writ of habeas corpus - Locus 8 standi - 'Person aggrieved' - Explained. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: Abuse of process of court - Principles enumerated in the C judgment - Held: Court must ensure that its process is not abused. ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES: Roster of Judges and listing of cases - Division Bench D of High Court transferring a writ petition on the Board of single Judge, to its own Board - Held: The roster and placing of cases before different Benches of the High Court is unquestionably the prerogative of the Chief Justice of that Court - In absence of the Chief Justice, the senior most Judge E would pass directions in regard to the roster of Judges and listing of cases - In the instant case, no order was passed by the Chief Justice of the High Court or even the senior-most Judge, administratively In-charge of the Lucknow Bench, transferring Writ Petition No. 11112011 for hearing from a F Single Judge before which it was pending, to the Division Bench of that Court - On the basis of the a/legations made in Writ Petition No. 11112011, it had been listed before Single Judge - Transfer of Writ Petition No. 11112011 by Division Bench, suo motu, to its own Board was an order lacking administrative judicial propriety - Further, it has not been G specifically recorded nor is it implicitly clear that a notice was directed to petitioners in WP. No. 11112011 and they were given opportunity to address the court - Natural justice - Maxim 'Audi alteram partem'. H KISHORE SAMRITE v. ·STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 735 COST: False and frivolous writ petitions - Imposition of costs and disbursement of - Maxim jure natvrae aequum est neminem cum alterius detrimento et injuria fieri locupletiorem - A Explained, B The appellant, an ex-MLA of Madhya Pradesh filed writ petition No. 111 of 2011 before the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court stating that he came to know from certain websites to the effect that respondent no. 6, while on a tour of his Parliamentary constituency in U.P., C along with six others committed rape on a girl in 2006 and the said girl, her mother and father were kept in illegal detention by respondent no. 6. Invoking the right to life and liberty of the three named petitioners, as enshrined in Art. 21 of the Constitution, it was prayed that a writ of D habeas corpus be issued commanding the opposite parties, parti~ularly, respondent no. 6, t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.