- (1.) AMITAVA Lala, J. A writ petition was filed before this Court on 6 December, 2005 praying inter alia as follows: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quashing the impugned F. I. R. in case crime 320/2005, under Section 406, 420 I. P. C. ,police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh (Annexure-1 ). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in case crime No. 320/2005, under Section 406,420,i. P. C, Police Station Quarsi, District Aligarh. (iii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award the costs of the writ petition to the petitioners. "
(2.) THE first paragraph of the writ petition is as follows: "that this is the first writ petition on behalf of the petitioners before this Hon'ble Court and no other writ petition has ever been filed or pending before this Hon'ble Court for same cause of action. " Since this Court was convinced that the dispute is quasi civil in nature, the following order was passed on 8th December, 2005. "dispute appears to be quasi civil in nature. Upon hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we direct the Investigating Officer to complete the investigation of Case Crime No. 320 of 2005, under Sections 406,420, I. P. C. , P. S. Quarsi, District Aligarh within a period of three months from the date, on which a certified copy of this order is presented before him. The petitioners are directed to co-operate with the Investigating Officer in all possible manner. If the Investigating Officer or informant found himself aggrieved due to falsification, misstatement, fraud, non-cooperation with the Investigating Officer or any other reasons whatsoever relevant for the purpose, they are at liberty to apply for recalling/ variation/ vacating/ modification of the order However, the petitioners will not be arrested in the aforesaid case crime number till the submission of charge-sheet, if any. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, no order is passed as to costs. " However, in the order the relevant part is that if there is any falsification, misstatement, fraud etc. , and if it brought to the notice of the Court, the order will be recalled, varied or modified. After passing this order the respondent No. 4 filed an application stating that upon suppression of material fact that in respect of self same F. I. R. the petitioners had already proceeded with a writ petition earlier. The earlier writ petition being Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6488 of 2005 (Sushil Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of U. P. & Ors.) was disposed of on 14th September, 2005. It appears to us that after the expiry of four weeks stay of the earlier order, when period was over the present writ petition was filed. It is a tactical ploy on the part of the litigants with the Court, hence it is to be treated as fraud upon the Court. Initially the Court was pleased to grant stay of operation of such order at the instance of applicant/ respondent No. 4 herein and directed to issue a notice upon the writ petitioners. Sri Raja Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before this Court that litigants themselves suppressed such facts of following the earlier writ petition with him as a result he proceeded accordingly. Since he has no such role to play to call upon the Court, he can be excused otherwise the matter would be forwarded to the appropriate Bar Council. However, the litigants cannot be excused. We have carefully considered the position of law in this respect. The Court is empowered to take judicial notice and to pass appropriate order in view of Art. 215 of the Constitution of India. It is in fact a criminal contempt interfering or obstructing with the administration of justice. In a judgment reported in 1995 (1) JIC 348 (SC) : (1996) 7 SCC 397, 1995 SCC (Cri ) 677 (Afzal & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. , it has been held that if a false or a misleading for a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would prejudice or interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings and thus amounts to contempt of Court. A similar principle has also been taken in (1997) 2 SCC 631 (Government of A. P. & Anr. v. G. Lakshman Reddy & Anr. ). However, the same is established to take a prima facie view.
(3.) THEREFORE at the first phase the application for recalling stands disposed of accordingly by recalling the order passed earlier on 8th December, 2005. In the second phase the writ petition is to be treated as day's list by the consent of the parties and dismissed upon payment of cost as assessed Rs. 1700 to be paid to the respondent No. 4 applicant herein.;