- (1.) WE have yet another instance of suppression of fact of filing a parallel petition vide Criminal Misc. Application No. 3906 of 2012 by Smt. Neelam Gupta and another and getting an order of being admitted to bail in the light of some decisions of the Court as may appear from the order passed on 2.2.2012 in Criminal Misc. Application No. 3906 of 2012. Not only that the petitioner was also suppressing the fact that after having not-surrendered in the court below in pursuance to the direction of the learned Single Judge in the above noted criminal misc. application, she had applied for extension of time for surrendering in the court below and that had also been granted by another order passed on 2.3.2012.
(2.) THE prayers which have been made in the present petition are as follows: (i) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned first information report dated 1.12.2011 (annexure-1) registered at Police Station Chetganj as Case Crime No. 275 of 2011, under Sections 147, 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C. (ii) a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent nos. 1,2 and 3 either from arresting and/or using coercive methods against the petitioner in Case Crime No. 275 of 2011, under Sections 147, 364, 302 and 201 I.P.C., P.S. Chetganj, City district Varanasi registered pursuant to first information report dated 01.12.2011 at P.S Chetganj, city and district Varanasi. (iii) any other suitable writ, order or direction as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) award cost of this petition to the petitioner. Thus, what we find is that the similar prayers have been made by the petitioner before a learned Single Judge of this Court and an order was also obtained, but by suppressing those facts the present petition has been filed. While we were pointing out to these facts to Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, he started pointing out that two jurisdictions being dissimilar to each other, there was no bar to prefer a criminal writ petition like the present one. He was very stressful when we were objecting to the suppression of fact made by him and when the learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, namely, Sri Prashant Kumar produce the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Sri Mishra was again justifying the concealment of fact from this Bench. Thus, it was apparently clear that the counsel was quite aware of the fact that his client had earlier filed a petition with similar prayers and had obtained some orders as well, but instead of appearing before the court below had filed present petition suppressing the aforesaid facts. We deprecate the attempt made by learned counsel for the petitioner of not acting in the best traditions of the profession of properly making submissions about the previous filing of the petition in the present petition also, and in conniving with the petitioner to suppress the facts. This act of the counsel appears intentional and purposeful to keep us in dark, and thereby snatch an order on suppression of facts. We are compelled under the above circumstances to issue notice to the petitioner, Smt. Neelam Gupta to show cause in three weeks as to why the act of suppression of fact should not be treated as a contempt of this Court and why appropriate contempt actions should not be initiated against her. She must file her replies within the stipulated period, else, it shall be assumed by this Court that she had nothing to say and the Court shall proceed to pass an appropriate order. List, accordingly, after three weeks before us.;