The Orissa High Court has dismissed a petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking to quash an impending criminal proceeding, and imposed an exemplary cost of Rs 50,000 on the petitioner for suppressing material facts. The Bench of Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra held that the petitioner had deliberately concealed adverse orders passed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court and the Supreme Court rejecting his anticipatory bail applications in the same case.
What Was The Legal Obligation To Disclose Prior Bail Orders?
The petitioner argued that an accused seeking quashing of an FIR is not obligated to disclose earlier anticipatory bail rejection orders. The High Court rejected this submission, relying on Clause 5(1)(a) and (b) of Chapter XVIII of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948. These rules mandate that every petition for relief in a criminal matter must contain a declaration, supported by an affidavit, disclosing any previous application under Section 482, 483, or 528 BNSS, or any Criminal Revision or Writ Petition concerning the same case, along with the result thereof. The rules further require disclosure of similar applications made to the Supreme Court and their outcomes.
Factual Background And Suppression Of Orders
An FIR was registered against the petitioner under Sections 126(2), 296, 118(1), 109(1), 61(2), and 303(2) read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). The allegations pertained to hiring two assailants to cause a fatal assault on the informant. The petitioner filed a quashing petition on October 21, 2026, contending that no case was made out against him even on the face of the FIR.
During the hearing, counsel for the informant brought to the Court's notice that the High Court had rejected the petitioner's anticipatory bail application by an order dated September 10, 2026. Subsequently, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition, which was also dismissed on October 16, 2026. The Apex Court directed the petitioner to surrender before the jurisdictional court and seek regular bail. Despite these adverse orders, the petitioner filed the quashing petition five days later without disclosing either order.
Court's Observations On Clean Hands And Disclosure
The Court observed that the submission made by counsel for the petitioner was wholly misconceived and devoid of merit in view of the statutory rules mandating full disclosure. The Bench emphasised that such an argument runs contrary to settled principles governing the obligation of a litigant to make full and candid disclosure before a Court of law. The Court held that on the ground of suppression alone, the petition was liable to be dismissed, as the petitioner had not approached the Court with clean hands.
Comparison Of Disclosure Requirements Under High Court Rules
Rule Provision | Disclosure Requirement |
|---|---|
Clause 5(1)(a), Chapter XVIII, Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 | Declaration of any pending or disposed application under Section 482, 483, or 528 BNSS, Criminal Revision, or Writ Petition (Criminal) concerning the same case, filed by the applicant or any party, with results. |
Clause 5(1)(b), Chapter XVIII, Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 | Declaration of similar applications made to the Supreme Court with results, and particulars of involvement in any other criminal case with decisions thereof. |
Consequently, the Court dismissed the quashing petition and directed the petitioner to deposit the exemplary cost of Rs 50,000 in the Odisha Chief Minister's Relief Fund.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate.
Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel for the State; Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate for the Informant.