RAM DHAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

RAM DHAN versus STATE OF U.P. AND ANR.

Petitioner suppressed material facts by not disclosing prior unsuccessful proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; this alone justifies dismissal. Filing of successive petitions amounts to abuse of process. Offences under Sections 177 and 182 IPC are outside court, so Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. do not apply. No cogent reason for Supreme Court interference.

Parties
Petitioner: Ram Dhan; Respondent: State of U.P.; Respondent: Balraj alias Billu
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Dismissal at Supreme Court
Outcome
petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Successive Petitions, Suppression of Material Facts, Section 195 Cr.p.c., Section 340 Cr.p.c., False Information, False Evidence
Criminal Law Procedure Successive Petitions Suppression of Material Facts Section 195 Cr.p.c. Section 340 Cr.p.c. False Information False Evidence

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Dhan

Petitioner

State of U.P.

Respondent

Balraj alias Billu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Dismissal at Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether prosecution of the petitioner is liable to be quashed under Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. for offences allegedly committed in court proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether successive petitions amount to abuse of process of court.
  3. 3 Whether suppression of material facts by petitioner justifies dismissal of the SLP.

Ratio Decidendi

Petitioner suppressed material facts by not disclosing prior unsuccessful proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; this alone justifies dismissal. Filing of successive petitions amounts to abuse of process. Offences under Sections 177 and 182 IPC are outside court, so Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. do not apply. No cogent reason for Supreme Court interference.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed

Orders

  • Special Leave Petition dismissed.
  • No interference with impugned order.