ISLAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Sri Arvind Agarwal, learned counsel on behalf of petitioners, namely, Islam, Maley, Haseena. Shadat, Israr, Asfaq, Tasrul. Riyaz, Kishwari. Vali Sher Khan and Ruksana Begum and learned A.G.A. for the State. In pursuance to our order passed on 22.3.2012, by which we have issued notice to the petitioners to explain as to why they should not be appropriately punished for misinforming the counsel and thereby duped this Court into an embarrassing situation by concealing some material facts which we have noted in our order dated 22.3.2012 and thus were attempting to mislead the Court in falling in error in passing the Judgment and order which the Court should not have passed under the appropriate information. The petitioners have appeared and filed their show cause.

(2.) The petitioners are accused In Case Crime No. 1412 of 2011 under Sections 498A, 364, I.P.C. and 3 /4 of D.P. Act. They had preferred a Criminal Misc. Application (under Section 482, Cr.P.C.) No. 207 of 2012 and the learned single Judge, who heard that petition in the light of some of decisions of this Court in the case of Amarawati and another v. State of U.P., 2004 57 AllLR 290 and in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 3 ADJ 322, directed the petitioners to appear before the court below and get an order in the light of the law settled down by, those decisions. The petitioners did not appear in time. They sought extension of time which was set down earlier by the learned single Judge and the Court again showed its indulgence by extending the time which had been set down by its order dated 4.1.2012 and directed that in case the petitioners did not appear within two weeks of the order dated 7.2.2012, coercive actions were to be initiated against the petitioners.

(3.) That particular order being very much in existence as we have just noted, the petitioners preferred the present criminal misc. writ petition and sought the same relief in the nature of mandamus to direct the police officers not to arrest the petitioners in connection with the above noted case crime. When the matter was taken up by this Court, the information regarding the order which was passed by the learned single Judge of the Court in petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. directing the petitioners to surrender in the court below by its order dated 4.1.2012 and the extension which was granted with some rider by order dated 7.2.2012, were concealed from the Court. In fact, it was nowhere stated in the petition that the petitioners had ever preferred any 482, Cr.P.C. petition in which the Court showed its indulgence by passing two orders as we have just noted. Finding that similar relief's are being sought by the petitioners in the present petition, we issued the notice.