MURLIDHAR Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) It appears that the impugned order dated 3/1/1994 was obtained by filing a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without disclosing the fact that an earlier revision petition filed under S. 397/401 of the Criminal Procedure Code had been rejected by the High court on 23-12- 1993. It is not disputed that in the memo of the petition under Section 482 of the code this important fact was not disclosed. What would have been the effect of disclosure is not a matter on which we would like to comment. We would leave that for the High court to decide. But we certainly do not appreciate a party obtaining an order from the High court without disclosing a material fact which may have a bearing on the ultimate order that the High court may like to make. We, therefore, cannot allow the impugned order to stand.

(3.) We. therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 3/1 /1994. However, the interim order passed by the High court which is a part of the impugned a order will operate for ten days from today. In the meantime, the applicants in the application under Section 482 of the Code will move the High court to obtain appropriate orders on their application under Section 482 of the Code on a clean slate. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly.