Kerala High Court Slams Abuse Of Judicial Process | Litigants Must Not Approach Court With Soiled Hands | Warns That Suppression Of Facts And Bench Hunting Will Invite Exemplary Costs
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice S. Manu dismissed a criminal miscellaneous case filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, after finding that the petitioner had filed a second petition for the same relief without disclosing the pendency of an earlier one. The Court declared that the petitioner had abused the process of law and imposed exemplary costs of ₹20,000 to be paid to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority. The Court further directed the Registry to ensure recovery of the amount and noted the necessity of measures to prevent bench hunting and suppression of material facts.
The petitioner, an accused in a criminal case pending before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-II, Attingal, filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 516 of 2021) under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking quashing of the final report arising from Crime No. 840/2019 registered at the Mangalapuram Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District.
While this first petition remained pending, the petitioner filed a second Criminal Miscellaneous Case (Crl.M.C. No. 8210 of 2023) through a different counsel, seeking the same relief on the ground that the matter had been settled between the petitioner and the de facto complainant. This second petition was allowed by order dated 31.10.2023, resulting in the quashing of proceedings in C.C. No. 2107 of 2020.
Subsequently, the Court in Crl.M.C. No. 516 of 2021 took note of this development and observed that the pendency of the first petition was not disclosed in the second petition. The Registry was directed to issue notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why proceedings should not be initiated against him for suppression and why exemplary costs should not be imposed.
In response, the petitioner submitted a communication via email and later filed a statement in the form of an affidavit, although it was not properly attested. These were accepted and marked as Annexures ‘X’ and ‘Y’. The petitioner explained that the second petition was filed after an out-of-court settlement was initiated by the de facto complainant’s counsel, and that the petitioner had gone abroad, leaving further arrangements to the said counsel. He claimed to have no knowledge of the filing of the second petition and attributed the situation to a communication gap.
The original counsel who filed the first Crl.M.C. confirmed that he was never contacted to relinquish his engagement, nor was he informed about the second petition. He stated that he only came to know of it during a court hearing when submissions were made by the learned Public Prosecutor. He acknowledged that the petitioner had engaged in an unfair practice and submitted that appropriate orders may be passed by the Court.
The Court noted that the first petition was filed in 2021 and that no order, including interim relief, had been passed. A stay application had also remained unaddressed. It appeared that the matter was not considered fit for immediate relief at the admission stage. Despite this, the petitioner initiated fresh proceedings through a second petition for identical reliefs, suppressing the pendency of the earlier one.
The Court recorded that this act amounted to abuse of the court’s process and was suggestive of bench hunting, a practice where litigants file matters before different benches to seek a favourable outcome. The Court pinpointed out that such conduct results in a waste of valuable judicial time and undermines the integrity of the judicial system.
The Court considered the conduct of the petitioner in filing a second Crl.M.C. while the first was pending, without disclosing the earlier filing, and termed it an abuse of the judicial process. The Court opened its reasoning by referring to the responsibility that accompanies invocation of the Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction: “Inherent powers cannot be used to extend relief to someone who approached the court in an unclean manner and withheld important information.”
The Court highlighted that the petitioner had failed to act with candour and fairness expected of a litigant approaching a constitutional forum: “Those who invoke this extraordinary authority of the Court should disclose every material fact and be fair.”
Discussing the broader implications of such conduct, the Court referenced binding Supreme Court authority and stated: “Casual attitude in approaching this Court and experimentation in litigation cannot be tolerated.”
The Court referred to Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, observing that:
“In the last 40 years, a 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.”
It went on to referChandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, stating that judicial proceedings must remain unpolluted: “Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice.”
In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and Others, the Court noted the following:
“If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone.”
The High Court observed that its powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are akin to the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the same principles of equity and disclosure apply. The Court stated: “Reliefs are not to be placed on soiled hands while exercising prerogative jurisdiction.”
The judgment further included observations from Aravindakshan v. State of Kerala, stating that:
“He who sees equity must do equity. Those who are seeking equitable and discretionary reliefs will have to approach the Court with clean hands.”
The Court found the petitioner’s explanation—relating to being abroad and communication lapses—unsatisfactory and lacking credibility. It observed that:
“This explanation cannot be accepted as the order to his benefit was passed in Crl.M.C.No.8210 of 2023 which definitely would have come to his knowledge.”
The Court concluded that the petitioner’s conduct amounted to abuse of the court’s process and warranted penal consequences.
It recorded that the practice adopted by the petitioner unquestionably amounted to abuse of the process of the court and hence appropriate orders were to be passed keeping in mind the necessity to preserve the purity of the judicial process.
Invoking its powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court directed that the petitioner was to pay a cost of ₹20,000 (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) to the Kerala State Legal Services Authority within a period of one month.
The Court further instructed the administrative wing to ensure compliance and recovery, stating that the Registry should ensure remittance of cost by the petitioner as directed and take appropriate steps for recovery in case the petitioner failed to pay the cost within the stipulated time limit.
The Court additionally called for systemic safeguards to prevent recurrence of such conduct, observing that time had come to ponder about analogous declarations or undertakings being insisted in the case of Crl.M.Cs filed under Section 528 of BNSS also, to prevent unscrupulous litigants from abusing the prerogative jurisdiction of the High Court and indulging in bench hunting.
The Registry was asked to take note of the judgment and consider steps to implement such safeguards.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: P. Anoop (Mulavana), Advocate
For the Respondents: Harish K.P., Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Shamil Muhammed v. State of Kerala & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:33316
Case Number: Crl.M.C. No. 516 of 2021
Bench: Justice S. Manu
[Read/Download order]
