Anil Deshmukh’s false, incorrect and overruled plea in Supreme Court
Anil Deshmukh’s false, frivolous, incorrect and overruled plea in Supreme Court
Anil
Deshmukh and the State authority affirming the petition need to be prosecuted under sec 191,192,193,199,200 etc of IPC and the petition filed by him and state needs to be dismissed with heavy cost of Rs. 5 Crore or more as done by the Full Bench in the case of
Perjury petition is likely to be filed in the Supreme Court shortly.
Supreme Court had imposed a cost of Rs. 25 Lacs upon one Petitioner
represented by Sr. Adv. Abhishek Manu Singhavi.
Court had also directed strict action against public servants
involved in conspiracy to loot the public property.
New Delhi:
The news published on Live Law news
portal (6 April 2021 3:59 PM)
stating that the petition filed by Mr. Anil Deshmukh is based on some 5 grounds.
However, any Junior and even a new entrant in the law field can easily understand that all these grounds are already rejected and overruled by the Supreme Court in similar case .
In this bilog I am pointing out the actual legal position and I am leaving the decision to the
readers conscience, whether Ex Home Minister and Govt. of Maharashtra is abusing the process of law and also causing wastage of 'Tax payer's money'
The
blatant false statement made by Anil Deshmukh in his Petition is as under;
"The
Court did not consider the non-exhaustion of alternate remedy of approaching
the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of CrPC."
Proofs of falsity and dishonesty of Anil Deshmukh's statement on oath: . The High Court had
specifically dealt the said issue in para 68 as under;
68. Since Dr. Patil has prayed for investigation into her
complaint by the CBI, she could not have
moved the Magistrate under Section 156(3), CrPC in terms of the law laid down
in CBI (supra) and Sakiri Vasu (supra). That apart, Sakiri Vasu (supra) also reiterates the settled position in law
that if there is an alternative remedy,
the High Court should not ordinarily interfere (emphasis supplied).
63. Prior to considering
such decisions, we may briefly make a reference to the decision of the Supreme
Court in CBI v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 333.
The central question arising for decision there was:
“Has a Magistrate power to direct the Central Bureau of
Investigation to conduct
investigation into any offence?”
Recently Supreme Court hadordered prosecution against such mischievous litigants in A.B.C.D. Vs. Union of India (2020) 2 SCC 52. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnana University & Anr. Vs. Union of India (2019) 14 SCC 761, M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd. Vs. Bhanumati Keshrichand Jhaveri (2020) 4 SCC 41.
The Human Rights Activist Mursalin Shaikh is filing a perjury petition in the Supreme Court as per information received from his counsel Adv. Nilesh Ojha.
“23. Recently, a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in E. Sivakumar Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2018)
7 SCC 365 , while dealing with the appeal preferred by the “accused” challenging the order of the High
Court directing investigation by CBI, in paragraph 10 observed:
“10. As regards the second ground urged by the
petitioner, we find that even this aspect has been duly considered in the
impugned judgment. In paragraph 129 of the impugned judgment, reliance has been
placed on Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki Vs. State of Gujarat, wherein
it has been held that in a writ petition seeking impartial
investigation, the accused was not entitled to opportunity of hearing as a
matter of course. Reliance has also been placed in Narender G.
Goel Vs. State of Maharashtra, in particular, paragraph 11 of the reported
decision wherein the Court observed that it is well settled that the
accused has no right to be heard at the stage of investigation. By
entrusting the investigation to CBI which, as aforesaid, was imperative in the
peculiar facts of the present case, the fact that the petitioner was not
impleaded as a party in the writ petition or for that matter, was not heard, in
our opinion, will be of no avail. That per se cannot be the basis to label the
impugned judgment as a nullity.””
For the convenience of the reader, the other grounds taken by Mr. Anil Deshmukh and the relevant binding precedents of the SC which prove the frivolity of his petition are explained as under:
Ground #: The
order was passed without hearing Deshmukh. The ex-parte procedure adopted by the
Court caused prejudice.
“By entrusting the
investigation to CBI which, as aforesaid, was imperative in the peculiar facts
of the present case, the fact that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party
in the writ petition or for that matter, was not heard, in our opinion, will be
of no avail. That per se cannot be the basis to label the impugned judgment as
a nullity.”
Ground #: The
Court did not take into account the fact that Maharashtra Government has
revoked the general consent given to CBI.
Actual Legal Position: Constitution
Bench in State of West Bengal and Ors. V/s. Committee for
Protection of Democratic Rights and Ors., reported in (2010)
3 SCC 57, had ruled that the
High court can direct the investigation by CBI without there being consent by
the State Government.
Ground #: The Court did not give an opportunity for the State Police Machinery to respond to the allegations.
Secondly, in such
cases no response of the state is required because they are the interested party.
The allegations
against Home Minister, Senior Police officials cannot be investigated by the
state police. Supreme Court, in a similar case against senior police officials
and the then Gujarat Home Minister Amit Shah had laid down the law that such
cases has to be investigated only by the CBI.[Rabibuddin Shaikh (2010) 2
SCC 200].
It was
observed by the SC that since the accusations are directed against the
local police personnel it would be desirable to entrust the investigation to an
independent agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation so that all
concerned including the relatives of the deceased may feel assured that an
independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final
outcome of the investigation credibility. However, faithfully the local police
may carry out the investigation, the same will lack credibility since the
allegations are against them. It is only with that in mind that we having
thought it both advisable and desirable as well as in the interest of justice,
to entrust the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation.
Ground #: The
Court did not take into account the fact that Param Bir Singh made the
allegations immediately after he was removed from the post of Mumbai Police
Commissioner.
Actual
Legal Position: This question is answered by the Supreme Court in catena of
judgments and more particularly in the case of M. Narayandas Vs. State Of Karnataka 2004 Cr. L. J.
822 (SC) where it is ruled that The High Court
cannot anticipate the result of the investigation or render a finding on
question of malafides. Even if the Appellant had made the
complaint on account of personal vendetta that by itself was not a ground to
discard the complaint which had to be tested and weighed after the evidence was
collectedas under;
“Even assuming that Dharam Pal has laid the
complaint only on account of his personal animosity, that by itself, will not
be a ground to discard the complaint containing serious allegations which have
to be tested and weighed after the evidence is collected. …..
***For this reason the submission cannot be
accepted. If as claimed there is no substance in the complaint the
investigation will say so. At this stage there were only allegations and
recriminations. The High Court could not have anticipated the result of
the investigation or rendered a finding on question of malafides. Even
if the Appellant had made the complaint on account of personal vendetta that by
itself was not a ground to discard the complaint which had to be tested and
weighed after the evidence was collected. ”
Ground #: CBI
enquiry is ordered under Article 226 in exceptional circumstances after the
failure of state police is demonstrated. However, no opportunity was given to
the State Police to deal with the matter. As per Supreme Court precedents, CBI
investigation is ordered after the State Police investigates the matter at the
first instance.
This
issue is already dealt by the High Court in para 82 as under;
“We quite agree with Shri Nankani
and Shri Jha that an unprecedented case has come before the Court. We also
agree with Dr. Patil that directions are required for facilitating an unbiased,
impartial, fair but effective probe so that the truth is unearthed and the
devil, if any, shamed in accordance with procedure established by law. Here, Shri Deshmukh is the Home Minister.
The police department is under his control and direction. There can be no fair,
impartial, unbiased and untainted probe, if the same were entrusted to the
State Police Force. As of necessity, the probe has to be entrusted to an
independent agency like the CBI. While so entrusting, the note of caution
in P. Sirajuddin (supra) has to be
borne in mind.”
Ground #: Interim
appointments of CBI Director cannot go on. The Attorney General had told the
bench that the meeting of the Committee for the selection of CBI Director is
scheduled on May 2.
Actual Legal Position: That
does not have any impact on preliminary enquiry by the CBI. The submission has
no legal sanctity except jugglery of words.
In Urban Improvement Trust,Bikaner vs Mohan
Lal (2010) SCC , the Apex Court strongly deprecated the tendency of the
Government to challenge the orders on technical and frivolous grounds.
The relevant para
reads thus;
“5. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view
that the governments and statutory
authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but
unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice.
…….But instead of remedying the wrong, by
complying with the decision of the Consumer fora, the Improvement Trust is
trying to brazen out its illegal act by contending that the allottee should
have been protested when it illegally laid the road in his plot. It has
persisted with its unreasonable and unjust stand by indulging in unnecessary
litigation by approaching the National Commission and then this Court. The Trust should sensitise its officers to
serve the public rather than justify their dictatorial acts. It should avoid
such an unnecessary litigation.”
In V.Chandrasekaran & Anr vs
Administrative Officer (2012) 12 SCC 133 the
Supreme Court outrightly rejected the appeals with the heavy costs of Rupees Twenty
Five lacs. The appellants were represented by senior
counsel Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi and Mr. Rajiv Dutta. Such
judgments of the Supreme Court will send a message in the society that the
Courts are concerned only with the merits of the case and the identity of
lawyer will not affect or influence the decision. Such bold Judges will enhance
the respect of the Supreme court in the mind of common public and is also an
encouraging factor for deserving junior lawyers.
It was observed by Hon’ble supreme Court that;
“Facts of the case reveal a very sorry state of affairs as how the
public property can be looted with the connivance and collusion of the so
called trustees of the public properties. It reflects on the very bad
governance of the State authorities.
The Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu is requested to examine the
issues involved in the case and find out as who were the officials of the State
or Board responsible for this loot of the public properties and proceed against
them in accordance with law. He is further directed to ensure eviction of the
appellants from the public land forthwith.”
The relevant paras reads thus;
“ 3. Dr. Abhishek M. Singhvi and Mr.
Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, have
submitted that, since the Section
6 declaration dated 6.6.1981 has
been quashed in toto and no fresh declaration was made thereafter, subsequent
proceedings are void ab-initio.
..Dr. A.M. Singhvi has not pressed for the
relief of reconveyance. However, it is apparent that the appellants’ claim
cannot co-exist and can be said to be blowing hot and blowing cold,
simultaneously.
.. A party cannot be permitted to “blow hot and
cold”, “fast and loose” or “approbate and reprobate”. Where one knowingly
accepts the benefits of a contract or conveyance or an order, is estopped to
deny the validity or binding effect on him of such contract or conveyance or
order. This rule is applied to do equity, however, it must not be applied in a
manner as to violate the principles of right and good conscience
In view of the above, we are of the considered
opinion that the sale deeds in favour of the appellants are void and
unenforceable.
36. In Dalip Singh
v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC 114, this Court noticed an
altogether new creed of litigants, that is, dishonest litigants and went on to
strongly deprecate their conduct by observing that, the truth constitutes an
integral part of the justice delivery system. The quest for personal gain has
become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to seek
shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the course
of court proceedings. A litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice,
or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled
to any relief, interim or final.
37. The truth should be the guiding star in the entire judicial
process. “Every trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest”. An
action at law is not a game of chess, therefore, a litigant cannot prevaricate
and take inconsistent positions. It is one of those fundamental principles of
jurisprudence that litigants must observe total clarity and candour in their
pleadings. (Vide: Ritesh Tewari
& Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2010) 10 SCC 677;
and Amar Singh v.
Union of India, (2011) 7 SCC 69).
38. In Maria
Margarida Sequeria Fernandes & Ors. v. Erasmo Jack de
Sequeria (dead), (2012) 5 SCC 370), this Court taking note of its earlier
judgment in Ramrameshwari
Devi v. Nirmala Devi, (2011) 8 SCC 249 held:
“False claims and defences are really serious problems with
real estate litigation, predominantly because of ever-escalating prices of the
real estate. Litigation pertaining to valuable real estate properties is
dragged on by unscrupulous litigants in the hope that the other party will tire
out and ultimately would settle with them by paying a huge amount. This happens
because of the enormous delay in adjudication of cases in our courts. If
pragmatic approach is adopted, then this problem can be minimised to a large
extent.” The Court further observed that wrongdoers must be denied profit from
their frivolous litigation, and that they should be prevented from introducing
and relying upon, false pleadings and forged or fabricated documents in the
records furnished by them to the court.
39. In view of the above, the appellants have disentitled
themselves for any equitable relief.
Facts of the case reveal a very sorry state of affairs as how the
public property can be looted with the connivance and collusion of the so
called trustees of the public properties. It reflects on the very bad
governance of the State authorities.
43. The aforesaid conclusions do not warrant any relief to the
appellants. The appeals are dismissed with the costs of Rupees Twenty
Five lacs, which the appellants are directed to deposit with the
Supreme Court Legal Services Authority within a period of six weeks.
44. In addition thereto, the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu is
requested to examine the issues involved in the case and find out as who were
the officials of the State or Board responsible for this loot of the public
properties and proceed against them in accordance with law. He is further
directed to ensure eviction of the appellants from the public land forthwith.”
In Kusum Kumria And Ors. Vs
Pharma Venture (India) Pvt. Ltd. MANU/DE/3144/2015, it is ruled that;
No relief to dishonest litigants - new creed of
litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any
respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical
means for achieving their goals.In order to meet the challenge posed by this
new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules
and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the
stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted
hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.( Vide.: Dalip Singh
v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114) )
The instant case manifests abuse of judicial process of the worst kind - Filing of frivolous application, adopting dilatory tactics, pleading contradictory stands and pressing pleas contrary to settled legal positions tantamount to the grossest abuse of the judicial process. More so, the entirety of this litigation is misconceived and without any merit. It has had the effect of entangling valuable rights of the defendants in this legal tussle - costs of the present appeal are assessed at a total of `6,00,000/- in addition to (ii), counsel's fee is assessed at `19,750/- also payable in equal shares by the three appellants. ( para 242)"
In the light of the grounds mentioned above, it seems that the fate of the petition of Ex. Home Minister as well as the State of Maharashtra, is already sealed!!!
Comments
Post a Comment