21. In the petition in Crl.O.P.No.16108 of 2014, the defacto complainant did not even make a whisper about the filing of three previous criminal original petitions and one writ petition by her and the filing of one Criminal Original Petition by her son. Therefore, there is no doubt in my mind that the defacto complainant was guilty of suppression of material facts. If it were a civil case, I would certainly throw out the claim of the defacto complainant on this one ground, namely, that a person, who came to Court without clean hands will not be entitled to any relief at the hands of this Court. Suppressing material facts, especially relating to previous proceedings and snatching away an order from this Court are really condemnable. But unfortunately, when a criminal complaint of this nature is made by a common man, the same dictum cannot be allowed to throw the complaint out of the register. In complaints of this nature, the defacto complainants play only one part of the role. It is the state, which is the prosecuting agency and the interest of the state lies in ensuring the integrity of the officers, who constitute the State. Therefore, if on the basis of the principle that fraud vitiates all solemn acts I quash this First Information Report, it is not merely the interest of defacto complainant, but the interest of the State that I would be making to suffer. Therefore, the principle that fraud vitiates all solemn acts cannot be of universal application in cases where there is some person other than the person, who perpetrated a fraud, whose interest will also be in jeopardy. Therefore, despite my finding that the defacto complainant is clearly guilty of suppression of material facts and snatched an order from Court, I cannot go solely on that basis to quash the First Information Report.”
