“Purity of Judicial Proceedings Is Non-Negotiable”: Punjab & Haryana HC Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs, Dismisses Quashing Petitions Over Suppression of Material Facts
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana Single Bench of Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu dismissed three petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court held that the petitioners had approached with “tainted hands” by concealing material facts and deliberately suppressing the dismissal of their revision petition before the Revisional Court. Consequently, the Court imposed costs of ₹1,00,000, to be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association.
The petitions stemmed from a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding the alleged dishonour of eight post-dated cheques issued by the petitioners, totaling ₹3,93,10,271. These cheques were purportedly issued as part of a partial repayment against outstanding dues. The complainant, JCB India Limited, filed the complaint on 26.05.2017 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad.
The petitioners, represented through their company Dynamic (CG) Equipments Pvt. Ltd., filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the summoning order, the complaint, and the subsequent proceedings. Their core contentions included that the summoning order was passed without conducting a preliminary inquiry or examining witnesses, thereby violating the mandatory requirements under Section 202 Cr.P.C. The petitioners also claimed they had no responsibility for the business affairs of the complainant company and argued that similar proceedings were already pending before the Chhattisgarh High Court.
In response, the respondent company argued that the petitioners had deliberately withheld material information from the Court, particularly the fact that they had filed a revision petition against the summoning order dated 09.03.2018 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, which was dismissed on 25.09.2019. The respondent also maintained that the summoning order was legally sustainable and supported by evidence, including the complainant’s affidavit and documents.
The trial court had passed a summoning order on 26.05.2017 after reviewing the complainant's affidavit and accompanying documents. Notice of accusation was later served to the petitioners on 09.03.2018. The revision petition filed against this notice was dismissed in 2019, with the Revisional Court noting inconsistencies in the petitioners’ pleadings, specifically that the summoning order of 26.05.2017 was never challenged in the revision, despite being the real subject of dispute.
The High Court emphasized that the failure to disclose this dismissal in the subsequent quashing petition constituted suppression of material facts, effectively misleading the court. This omission formed the basis of the dismissal of the current petitions with costs.
The Court recorded that “purity of judicial proceedings is non-negotiable; whosoever attempts to pollute the same shall bear the consequences.” It further stated that the petitioners had engaged in “active concealment” of relevant judicial history and attempted to mislead the Court.
Quoting extensively from precedent, the Court recorded:
“Now it is well settled law that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from the Court of law, is actually playing fraud with the Court.”
Citing Kusha Duruka vs. The State of Odisha and Dalip Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, the Court observed: “Suppression of truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood.”
The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, recording:
“It is the bounden duty of the court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to surpass the legal process must be effectively curbed and the court must ensure that there is no wrongful, unauthorised or unjust gain to anyone as a result of abuse of process of court.”
In assessing the petitioners’ conduct, the Court observed that the concealment of the prior revision petition and its outcome “leaves no doubt that petitioners have not approached with clean hands.” The Court concluded that invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. while hiding critical facts was tantamount to abuse of the legal process.
The Court directed that the petitions be dismissed with costs, stating: “Consequently, this Court is left with no other option, except to dismiss the petitions with costs.”
It further directed: “Resultantly, all these petitions are dismissed with costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh).”
The costs were ordered to be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association, specifically in Account No. 37167209613, IFSC Code: SBIN0050306, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh, within four weeks from the date of the order.
The Court also noted: “Needless to say that interim order dated 31.08.2021 and extended from time to time shall come to an end automatically.”
Lastly, the Court clarified that the observations made in the order should not be construed as opinions on the merits of the underlying complaint proceedings.
“Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Gourav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Dr. Anand Bishnoi, Advocate and Mr. Vardaan Seth, Advocate
Case Title: M/s Dynamic (CG) Equipments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Ashwani Kumar Mahandru & others versus JCB India Limited
Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:047159
Case Number: CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & connected cases CRM-M No. 34053-2021 (O&M), CRM-M No. 34224-2021 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu
[Read/Download order]
