Chandra Pandit @ Aaliya Ansari And Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners Chandra Pandit @ Aaliya Ansari and Waseem Ahmad have filed this petition seeking proper and adequate protection and security for their life and liberty from the private respondents. When the matter was taken up on 23.04.2019, this Court passed the following order:-

"Petitioners before this Court are a married couple. According to the petitioners, their marriage was solemnized as per Muslim rites and ceremonies on 03.04.2019 at Madarsa Islamia Arabia M.D.D. Campus at Dehradun, District Dehradun. According to the petitioners, since they belong to the different faith, their marriage is being opposed by respondent nos.4 and 5 who are the relatives of petitioner no.1. They seek police protection from this Court as they have an apprehension that the private respondents may physically harm them.

Petitioners are present in person before this Court. This Court had interacted with them. They seem to be articulate and apprised this Court that they have threat perception at the hands of the private respondent nos.4 and 5.

In the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lata Singh vs.State of U.P. and another reported in (2006) 5 SCC 475, as an interim measure, we direct the Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun to coordinate with, and give suitable directions to the concerned SHO, to provide necessary protection to the petitioners as there is a threat perception at the hands of respondent nos.4 and 5.

Issue notice to respondent nos.4 and 5. Steps to be taken within a week.

Three weeks' time is granted to the respondents to file counter affidavit.

List this matter after four weeks in the daily cause list. Interim relief application (CLMA No.5204 of 2019) stands disposed of."

The matter was again taken up on 28.06.2019, when a fact was brought to the notice of the Court that in fact, petitioner no.1 Chandra Pandit @ Aaliya Ansari was already married and she has 5 years old twins. On that day the Court passed the following order:-

"Mr. Azmeen, Advocate for the petitioners submits that parties are staying happily and they have no threat perception but Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5, argued that by concealing the material fact, interim order has been obtained by the petitioners, therefore, respondent nos.4 and 5 may be given some time to file counter affidavit.

"Mr. Priyanshu Gairola, Advocate for respondents no.4 and 5 would urge that petitioner no.1-Chandra Pandit @ Aaliya Ansari was already married and she has 5 years old twins and the children born out of the wedlock of petitioner no.1 and her first husband, are in the care of respondent no.4, who is father of petitioner no.1.

On being questioned, Mr. Azmeen, Advocate for the petitioners submits that petitioner no.1 was earlier married but this fact was not conveyed to him, at the time, when writ petition was filed.

In paragraph 16 of the writ petition, petitioners categorically stated that this is their first marriage.

The statement made today at bar makes the contents of paragraph 16 of the petitioner palpably false.

Respondents no.4 & 5 may file counter affidavit within next three weeks. At the same time, we are of the view that petitioners should also be given notice and opportunity of hearing to show cause as to why a case for furnishing false affidavit before this Court may not be lodged and action be not taken against them. Petitioners shall file their reply on this aspect within three weeks.

Both the petitioners shall remain present, in person, before this Court on the next date fixed.

List on 23.07.2019."

On the next date of hearing i.e. 23.07.2019, learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the petitioners admit their guilt of concealment of a fact. On that day, the Court considered the option as to which proceeding may be initiated against the petitioners for concealment of the fact and filling of false affidavit and, inter-alia, passed the following order:-

"Should this Court proceed under the Contempt of Courts Act or direct for initiating criminal prosecution for filing false affidavit? This should be considered but before that petitioner no.2 would also be afforded an opportunity to explain the things. The supplementary affidavit, stated to have been filed by petitioner no.1, is yet not taken on record, let it be kept on record.

Petitioner no.2 shall also file his affidavit by 26.07.2019 in response to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.4 and 5.

List this case on 29.07.2019.

Both the petitioners shall remain present on that day also."

Petitioner nos.1 and 2 both have filed supplementary affidavits. In fact, this exercise has been done as a preliminary inquiry, for affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioners with regard to the allegations leveled against them for giving false affidavit. It would be apt at this stage to quote para 16 of the petition, which is hereunder:-

"16. This is first marriage of the petitioners and they have not married with anyone else in the past."

Today, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners may be pardoned for the mistake committed by petitioner no.1, whereas, on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5, learned counsel would submit that this is something very grave, therefore, the matter should be considered seriously. In her supplementary affidavit, petitioner no.1 Chandra Pandit @ Aaliya Ansari has admitted that she concealed the factum of first marriage while filing the petition for protection. In para 8 of her supplementary affidavit she states as hereunder:-

"8. The petitioner no.1 is accepting the fact that she was married with one Mr. Deepak Kumar R/o Village Merwa Bihar. Said marriage took place on 21.05.2009 from the marriage two kids were born on 11.03.2012 which were twins."

But what she states further is that petitioner no.2 never knew till the matter was taken up before the Court that she was married, earlier. In his affidavit separately filed, petitioner no.2 states that he never knew the fact that petitioner no.1 was already married.

According to the petitioners, they married on 03.04.2019. Both the petitioners have filed affidavits in support of the petition. As stated, a false averment has been made in the petition. It is a case of giving false evidence, filing false affidavit and using it as true or genuine. This has been done before this Court. This Court records a finding to this effect that both the petitioners filed false affidavit before this Court and used them as genuine or true. This Court is further of the view that a complaint should be filed against both the petitioners for filing false evidence and using it as genuine or true, in this proceeding before the Court.

The Registrar General of this Court shall make a complaint in writing and file it before the court of Magistrate having jurisdiction in the matter.

Today, it is informed on behalf of the petitioners that they have no apprehension of any threat now.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of accordingly.