Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abu Miya Jhangir Shaikh, filed a Criminal Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court seeking relief in relation to a property dispute. The petition was filed without disclosing that the petitioner had earlier approached the Special Court by way of Misc. Application No. 72 of 2004 and Misc. Application No. 152 of 2004, which were related to the same subject matter. The respondent State brought this suppression to the court's attention through an affidavit in reply. In response, the petitioner attempted to produce a photo-pass and a leave and licence agreement, but the agreement did not bear any date and referred to a different structure number (B-147-1/3) than the one in dispute. The petitioner's counsel argued that the number was wrongly mentioned, but there was no evidence to support this claim. Moreover, the Special Court had already observed in Misc. Application No. 152 of 2004 that the agreement prima facie appeared to be concocted and not genuine. The High Court found that the petition was absolutely frivolous and that every attempt was being made to mislead the court. The court held that a mere leave and licence agreement cannot create any claim, title, or interest in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the petition was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Frivolous Petition - Suppression of Facts - Petitioner suppressed earlier Misc. Applications before Special Court - Court held that such suppression amounts to abuse of process and petition is frivolous - Held that petition dismissed with costs (Paras 1-3).
B) Evidence - Concocted Document - Leave and Licence Agreement - Special Court had prima facie observed that the agreement was concocted - Petitioner failed to show any mistake in the document - Held that such document cannot create any claim, title or interest (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petition is maintainable in light of suppression of earlier proceedings and reliance on a prima facie concocted document.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 10,000.
Law Points
- Suppression of material facts
- Frivolous litigation
- Abuse of process of court
- Concocted documents
- Prima facie evidence
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (03) 55
Criminal Writ Petition 2698 of 2004
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, P.V. Kakade
Mr. M.S. Ahmed for the petitioner, Mr. D.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for the respondents
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal writ petition challenging some order or seeking relief in property dispute, but the court found it frivolous.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought relief from the High Court, but the exact remedy is not specified; the court dismissed the petition.
Filing Reason
Petitioner filed the petition without disclosing earlier proceedings before the Special Court, and relied on a leave and licence agreement that the Special Court had prima facie found to be concocted.
Previous Decisions
The Special Court had earlier dealt with Misc. Application No. 72 of 2004 and Misc. Application No. 152 of 2004, and in the latter, observed that the leave and licence agreement prima facie appeared to be concocted.
Issues
Whether the petition is maintainable in light of suppression of earlier proceedings?
Whether the leave and licence agreement can create any claim, title or interest?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the structure number in the leave and licence agreement was wrongly mentioned.
Respondent State submitted that the petitioner had suppressed earlier proceedings before the Special Court.
Ratio Decidendi
Suppression of material facts and reliance on a prima facie concocted document renders a petition frivolous and liable to be dismissed with costs.
Judgment Excerpts
Perusal of the record discloses that the present petition is absolutely frivolous petition and every attempt is being made to mislead the Court at every stage.
the said agreement prima facie appears to be concocted one to suit to the claim of the petitioner and the same is not genuine agreement.
mere agreement of leave and licence cannot create any sort of claim, title and interest in favour of the petitioner.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed Criminal Writ Petition 2698 of 2004 before the Bombay High Court. The respondent State filed an affidavit in reply disclosing that the petitioner had earlier filed Misc. Application No. 72 of 2004 and Misc. Application No. 152 of 2004 before the Special Court. The petitioner then attempted to produce a photo-pass and a leave and licence agreement. The High Court heard the matter and dismissed the petition with costs.
