The Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1 lakh on a petitioner who approached the Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) to quash a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The penalty was levied for suppressing a vital fact — the earlier dismissal of a revision petition against the summoning order.
The bench, led by Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu, strongly condemned the concealment of this key information and dismissed the plea while emphasizing the importance of transparency in judicial proceedings.
“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,” observed the Court.
The petitioner had sought to quash both the summoning order issued by the Judicial Magistrate First Class and the entire proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act. However, during the hearing, it came to light that the petitioner had already challenged the same summoning order before the Revisional Court, and the revision petition had been dismissed. This dismissal was intentionally not disclosed in the current petition.
“Suppression of material facts from the Court of law is actually playing fraud with the Court. The Latin maxim suppressio veri, expressio falsi i.e. suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted,” stated Justice Sindhu.
He further pointed out that there was a deliberate attempt by the petitioner to withhold this crucial detail, which amounted to an active concealment.
“The same has not been disclosed for the reasons best known to them; thus, there is an active concealment on their part,” the Court noted.
In backing this view, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kishore Samrite v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2013) 2 SCC 398], which clearly outlines the duty of litigants to disclose all relevant and material facts in petitions.
“Petitioners were bound to disclose the factum of dismissal of their revision petition on 25.09.2019 by the Revisional Court; but they knowingly and intentionally failed to do so,” the bench emphasized.
The High Court reiterated that judicial proceedings must be kept pure, and any attempt to contaminate them through deceit or concealment will attract serious consequences.
“Purity of judicial proceedings is non-negotiable; whosoever attempts to pollute the same shall bear the consequences,” the judge stated firmly.
As a result, the Court not only dismissed the petition but also imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on the petitioner, directing that the amount be deposited with the Punjab and Haryana High Court Employees Welfare Association.
Mr. Vaibhav Tanwar, Advocate (through V.C.) for the petitioners.
Mr. Gourav Chopra, Senior Advocate with Dr. Anand Bishnoi, Advocate and Mr. Vardaan Seth, Advocate for the respondent.
Title: M/s Dynamic (CG) Equipments Pvt. Ltd. through its Director Ashwani Kumar Mahandru & others v. JCB India Limited
