Concealment of pending revision in Section 482 application violates High Court Rules and vitiates proceedings.

The applicant, a former Chairperson of Nagar Panchayat Amethi, was summoned on 08.02.2024 in a complaint case under Section 420 IPC regarding the alleged issuance of a forged certificate

Aggrieved, the applicant filed Criminal Revision No. 91 of 2024 before the Sessions Court on 07.03.2024, where no interim relief was granted

While the revision was still pending, the applicant filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (now Section 528 BNSS) before the High Court on 18.09.2024, challenging the same summoning order

In her supporting affidavit, the applicant failed to disclose the pendency of the lower court revision, leading the High Court to grant an interim stay on 26.09.2024

Upon disclosure of the revision by the opposite party via counter-affidavit, the applicant moved to withdraw the 482 application, claiming her counsel filed the revision against her oral instructions

Rule 3(5), Chapter XVIII, Part-III of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, which mandates a specific declaration that no such criminal revision is pending in a lower court and stipulates that any substantial omission or misstatement results in dismissal, costs, and perjury prosecution

Doctrine from S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath: fraud avoids all judicial acts and a litigant with unclean hands has no right to approach the court

Principle from Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India: litigants who attempt to pollute the stream of justice through falsehood or suppression are not entitled to any relief

K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. regarding the duty of candid disclosure

The Court observed that the applicant filed the present 482 application six months after filing the lower court revision, directly violating the mandatory disclosure requirements of Rule 3(5) of the High Court Rules

The Court rejected the applicant's plea that the mistake was solely attributable to her counsel (Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society v. Balwan Singh), noting that the applicant had already engaged with the trial court and the revisional court through the same or associated counsel before filing the High Court petition

The Court reasoned that obtaining an interim stay from the High Court while failing to secure one in the lower court—without disclosing the latter's pendency—constituted a deliberate act of deception and fraud upon the court

The subsequent withdrawal application was viewed as an attempt to suppress the realized fraud rather than a bona fide corrective measure

The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected with an exemplary cost of ₹1,00,000/-, part of which (₹30,000/-) was directed to the opposite party and the remainder (₹70,000/-) to the State Legal Services Authority; the Court rejected the withdrawal and Section 340 applications as infructuous and partly allowed the opposite party’s application for prosecution for perjury