MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs Mst. ZUBAIDA BEGUM AND Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from proceedings initiated against the petitioner for allegedly furnishing a false surety bond in an urban tenancy eviction case, where the bond was a condition for staying physical ejectment. The core legal question concerns the propriety of the High Court's refusal to interfere with a lower court's direction for the petitioner's prosecution under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the petitioner's conduct throughout the protracted litigation. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower courts' findings that the petitioner had approached the court with unclean hands and lacked bona fides. The Court observed that the petitioner had engaged in a subversion of the legal process to frustrate lawful ejectment orders. The key principle laid down is that a petitioner who approaches a court with unclean hands and demonstrates a lack of bona fides in the context of legal proceedings is disentitled to discretionary relief, particularly in writ jurisdiction, as the court will not assist those who abuse the legal process.
- Does a petitioner who approaches the court with unclean hands and lacks bona fides forfeit the right to discretionary relief in writ jurisdiction?
- Can a court decline to interfere with a direction for prosecution under Section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the petitioner has abused the legal process?
- Section 476, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
- Section 476(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J. This petition for leave to appeal has arisen out of an alleged offence of petitioner furnishing of a false surety bond in pursuance of au order of the appellate Court for payment; of arrears of rent (Rs. 21,033) in an urban tenancy eviction case as condition for the stay of physical ejectment during the pendency of the appeal. It is not contested in the petition that as stated in the impugned judgment of the High Court, the eviction of the petitioner had been maintained up to the High Court (thrice) in earlier protracted proceedings. However, in that line of litigation which is now over one decade old, civil suits were filed and objections to physical eviction were also raised by another person Mr. Zaman (stated to be at the instance of petitioner) whom no doubt the petitioner has tried to defend in this petition. But the present matter does not directly relate to the question of suits or objections by Mr. Zaman.
2. A learned Civil Judge who it appears could also act as an executing Court for orders passed by a Rent Controller was requested from respondents' side to punish the petitioner, by virtue of section 476, Cr. P. C. For the alleged offence of furnishing a false surety bond. He declined to do so but on a revision which it is stated was also treated as an application under section 476(3), Cr. P. C. Learned district Court directed the petitioner's prosecution. This direction having been challenged in the High Court in its writ jurisdiction without any success, the petitioner has now sought leave to appeal.
3. It may be remarked that the learned Judge in the High Court has in a detailed marshalling of events in this litigation has given a finding of unclean hands against the petitioner. He in his petition; apart from the defence of Mr. Zaman, who started a separate litigation so as to frustrate the ejectment, orders, has while challenging the orders of the district Court and the High Court on law as also merits of the criminal case against him, has not made a straightforward effort to challenge the finding of unclean hands. To quote only one sentence in this context from the impugned judgment to illustrate the .Point, the learned Judge of the High Court observed that in this case the "subversion of legal process is par-excellence". The learned District Judge had also made similar observations in the order impugned before the High Court.
4. This petition accordingly is dismissed on account of lack of bona fide on petitioner's part and also on account of his unclean hands as held by the High Court which aspect would also be sufficient to deny any relief to the petitioner in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.