Supreme Court Imposes Cost Of Rs. 10k On Petitioner For Seeking Remission By Suppressing Facts & Giving False Information

The Supreme Court today (September 9) dismissed a special leave petition and imposed a cost of Rs.10,000 on a petitioner for seeking remission by suppressing facts. 

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and Augustine George Masih told the advocate that false statements have been pleaded in this case. 

The accused in this case sought remission against his conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. He was awarded rigorous imprisonment for life by the Trial Court. He had sought a grant of parole on the grounds that there was a medical emergency in the family. However, it was rejected on February 28.

The petitioner was in judicial custody for the last 14 years without remission, and he was re-arrested under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act when he was out on an emergency parole in 2020.

At the outset, Justice Oka said: "Six cases we have come across where for permanent remission, false statements are made."

In this, the SLP states that the Miscellaneous Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Delhi High Court seeking interim relief against conviction. However, the court perusing the SLP found that the M.A was not dismissed but withdrawn. 

Justice Oka stated: "Go to synopsis f, dated July 22, 2024, High Court though issued a notice in the writ petition, did not consider an application for grant of stay. So, we have produced a copy of the order that your application for interim relief was dismissed. July 22 in the synopsis statement, it is stated that it was not considered. Correct? Now, based on this report, we issued notices. Now please see the impugned order you have filed on record. You have withdrawn the interim application.It is not dismissed...This application was withdrawn. A completely false statement is made. A false copy was produced. Therefore, the application was dismissed."

The advocate tried clarifying that the application was dismissed as withdrawn.

However, the court did not accept this argument. 

Justice Oka remarked: "How much cost 10 lacs, 15 lacs for making false arguments?...We will dismiss it just now. We will not tolerate such completely false application. In six cases [in last three weeks], we have noticed. We are liberal when it comes to premature release but all sorts of statements are made in the petitions."

Justice Oka dictating the order said: "10648 of 2024, the SLP challenges order dated July 2, 2024 which reads thus [copy from page 2]. In the synopsis, it is stated that the petitioner was convicted and undergone a life sentence and filed the writ petition before the Delhi High Court seeking a writ of mandamus to consider his prayer for premature release. On page f of the synopsis, it is stated that Criminal M.A. No. was made. The grievance made on page f is that on July 22, though the HC issued noticed on writ petition, it did not consider application for grant of stay. However, order reproduced show that the application was dismissed"

He added: "The matter does not rest here. In the grounds, it is pleaded that the High Court order issuing notice without considering stay application constitutes arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. Now, a copy of impugned on record along with a separate application which records following order [copy para 3,2,5]. Thus, not only the application was heard by the High Court but after some arguments, the advocate for the petitioner withdrew the application. The writ petition projects a completely false case. The first case projected is that the prayer for interim relief is not considered. It indicates that prayer for interim relief was dismissed. However, the fact that the application for interim relief after arguing the case for some time was withdrawn by the petitioner was suppressed." 

"On account of suppression of facts, we dismiss this SLP. We direct the petitioner to pay a cost of Rs. 10,000 to be paid to Delhi Legal Service Authority from one month from today", the Court concluded.

Case details: Sunil Nayak @Fundi v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl) No. 10648.