Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Dynamic (Cg) Equipments Pvt Ltd vs Jcb India Limited on 5 April, 2025
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047159
CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & other connected cases
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
225 (3 cases)
1. CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.04.2025
M/s Dynamic (CG) Equipments Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioners
through its Director Ashwani Kumar Mahandru & others
Versus
JCB India Limited .....Respondent
2. CRM-M No. 34053-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.04.2025
M/s Dynamic (CG) Equipments Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioners
through its Director Ashwani Kumar Mahandru & others
Versus
JCB India Limited .....Respondent
3. CRM-M No. 34224-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.04.2025
M/s Dynamic (CG) Equipments Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioners
through its Director Ashwani Kumar Mahandru & others
Versus
JCB India Limited .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: 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.
1 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 19-04-2025 01:56:53 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047159
CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & other connected cases
2
****
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
“PURITY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE;
WHOSOEVER ATTEMPTS TO POLLUTE THE SAME
SHALL BEAR THE CONSEQUENCES”
Controversy involved in the aforesaid three cases is similar in
nature; hence all the cases are being disposed off by this common order.
2. For brevity, facts have been noticed from CRM-M-33584-2021.
3. Present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of complaint
bearing NACT No.2548 of 2017 dated 26.05.2017 (P-3) filed under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short ‘NI Act‘); summoning
order dated 26.05.2017 (P-1) and the entire proceedings thereof, pending
before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Faridabad (for short ‘JMIC’).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the present
case, impugned summoning order dated 26.05.2017 passed by learned trial
Court in complaint under Section 138 of NI Act is against the law. Further
contends that impugned summoning order was passed on the same very day,
when the present complaint was filed and that too, without any preliminary
enquiry and/or examination of any witness(es). Still further contends that
procedure contained under Section 202 Cr.P.C, which is mandatory in
nature, has not been complied with by learned JMIC before passing the
impugned summoning order. Also contends that the matter in controversy as
in the present case, is already pending before Hon’ble Chhatisgarh High
Court at Bilaspur (P-8 & P-9) and as such, impugned summoning order is
bad in the eyes of law. Lastly contended that petitioners were not responsible
2 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-04-2025 01:56:54 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047159
CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & other connected cases
3
for act or conduct of business of the respondent-company and as such,
issuance of process against petitioners is not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5. Per contra, learned Senior counsel vehemently opposed the
prayer while submitting that petitioners have concealed the true and material
facts from this Court in as much as they have not disclosed the filing of
revision petition against the impugned order of notice of accusation dated
09.03.2018 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad (for short
‘Revisional Court’) which was ultimately dismissed way-back on 25.09.2019
(P-1), as such, present petition is liable to be dismissed on that count only.
Further submits that there has been no violation of Section 202 Cr.P.C., as
alleged by petitioners. Again submits that impugned summoning order dated
26.05.2017 is legally sustainable and the present petition has been filed
belatedly after a period of more than 4 years with an oblique motive to harm
and harass the respondent. Lastly submitted that petitioners acknowledged
their liability vide letters dated 27.05.2016 (R-3) & 07.07.2016 (R-4) and
issued eight post dated cheques for a total sum of Rs. 3,93,10,271/- as partial
repayment of the whole outstanding dues.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-
book.
7. It transpires that respondent filed complaint bearing No. NACT
No.2548 of 2017 against petitioners under Section 138 NI Act on
26.05.2017. After considering the material on record and the preliminary
evidence in the form of affidavit of complainant (CW1/A) and documents
C-1 to C-10 led by complainant/respondent, impugned order was passed by
learned Magistrate on 26.05.2017, whereby petitioners were ordered to be
summoned to face trial for commission of offence punishable under Section
3 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-04-2025 01:56:54 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047159
CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & other connected cases
4
138 NI Act. Thereafter, notice of accusation was served on petitioner(s) on
09.03.2018. Further transpires that petitioners challenged the said order
dated 09.03.2018 before learned Revisional Court by way of filing Revision
petition bearing No.260-2018. Aforesaid, revision petition was ultimately
dismissed by learned Revisional Court vide order dated 25.09.2019 while
observing as under:-
“The revisionist has filed the present
revision petition against the order dated 9.3.2018
passed by the court of Sh. Vivek Singh, Id. Judicial
Magistrate Ist Class, Faridabad passed in criminal
complaint bearing no. 1023/2017 under section 138
of Negotiable Instrument Act vide which the
revisionist has been ordered to be summoned for the
offence under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act.
2. In the revision petition it is alleged that order
dated 9.3.2018 is based on conjectures and surmises
and the allegations alleged by the
complainant are absolutely wrong, false and
concocted one. The revisionist had never issued any
cheque in favour of the complainant and cheque in
question has not been signed by the revisionist. It
is therefore, prayed that revision petition filed by
the revisionist may kindly be allowed and the
impugned order dated 9.3.2018 passed by Id.
Trial court may kindly be set aside.
3. I have heard the rival contention of ld. Counsel for
both the parties and have gone through the case file
very carefully.
4. In the present case revisionist has challenged the
order dated 9.3.2018 vide which the
revisionist was summoned to face trial under
section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.
4 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-04-2025 01:56:54 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047159CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & other connected cases
5Alongwith the revision petition, a copy of order
dated 9.3.2018 has also been produced by the
revisionist.
5. I have perused the order dated 9,3.2018 and from
the perusal of the same it reveals that notice of
accusation was served upon the revisionist as well
as other co accused Ashwani Kumar Mahindru by
the Id. Trial court under section 138 of Negotiable
Instrument Act. I have also perused the lower court
record and from the perusal of the same it reveals
that revisionist and other co accused were
summoned to face trial vide order dated 25.05.2017
and not vide order dated 9.03.2018.
6. In the present revision petition summoning order
dated 25.5.2017 is not challenged by the revisionist
rather order dated 9.3.2018 is challenged. But from
the perusal of the contents of the revision petition it
reveals that revisionist has challenged the
summoning order and not notice of accusation. The
pleadings of the revision petition is itself
contradictory and therefore, no relief can be granted
to the revisionist in the present revision petition. With
these observations and without commenting on the
merits of the case, the present revision petition filed
by the revisionist is hereby dismissed. The file of the
trial court be sent back with one copy of this
judgment for compliance. Both the parties are
directed to appear before the Id. Trial court on
4.10.2019, (the date already fixed before Id. trial
Court). File of the revision-petitions be consigned to
the record room.”
A bare perusal of above extract reveals that revision petition
filed by petitioners was dismissed by learned Revisional Court on
25.09.2019, but the same has not been disclosed for the reasons best known
5 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-04-2025 01:56:54 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047159
CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & other connected cases
6
to them; thus, there is an active concealment on their part.
8. A fortiori, “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. The Latin maxim supressio veri, expressio falsi i.e.
suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets
attracted”, vide para 7, “Kusha Duruka Versus The State of Odisha”
(Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2024, decided on 19.01.2024 by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court).
9. Moreover, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Dalip Singh Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others” (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 114
frowned heavily upon unscrupulous litigants and observed as under:-
“1. For many centuries Indian society
cherished two basic values of life i.e. “satya” (truth)
and “ahimsa” (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam
Budhha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to
ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth
constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery
system which was in vogue in the pre-independence
era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in
the courts irrespective of the consequences. However,
post-independence period has seen drastic changes
in our value system. The materialism has
overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for
personal gain has become so intense that those
involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of
falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts
in the court proceedings.
2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of
litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this
6 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-04-2025 01:56:54 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047159CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & other connected cases
7creed do not have any respect for truth. They
shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means
for achieving their goals. In order to meet the
challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the
courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and
it is now well established 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.”
10. Apart that, Hon’ble the Supreme Court in “Kishore Samrite
Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others” (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases
398 has held as under:-
“35. With the passage of time, it has been
realised that people used to feel proud to tall the truth
in the courts, irrespective of the consequences but that
practice no longer proves true, in all cases. The court
does not sit simply as an umpire in a contest between
two parties and declare at the end of the combat as to
who has won and who has lost but it has a legal duty
of its own, independent of parties, to take active role
in the proceedings and reach at the truth, which is the
foundation of administration of justice. Therefore, the
truth should become the ideal to inspire the courts to
pursue. This can be achieved by statutorily mandating
the courts to become active seekers of truth. To enable
the courts to ward off unjustified interference in their
working, those who indulge in immoral acts like
perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehood, must
be appropriately dealt with. The parties must state
forthwith sufficient factual details to the extent that it
reduces the ability to put forward false and
exaggerated claims and a litigant must approach the
court with clean hands. It is the bounden duty of the
court to ensure that dishonesty and any attempt to7 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-04-2025 01:56:54 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047159CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & other connected cases
8surpass 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. One way to curb this
tendency is to impose realistic or punitive costs.
36.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
37. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
38. No litigant can play “hide and seek” with
the courts or adopt “pick and choose”. True facts
ought to be disclosed as the court known law, but not
facts. One, who does not come with candid facts and
clean breast cannot hold a writ of the court with
soiled hands. Suppression or concealment of material
facts is impermissible to a litigant or even as a
technique of advocacy. In such case, the court is duty-
bound to discharge rule nisi and such applicant is
required to be dealt with for contempt of court for
abusing the process of court.”
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion
that petitioners were bound to disclose the factum of dismissal of their
revision petition on 25.09.20219 by learned Revisional Court; but they
knowingly and intentionally failed to do so. Thus, considering the ratio of
law laid down in “Kusha Duruka’s case (supra), Dalip Singh’s case (supra)
and “Kishore Samrite’s case (supra), there remains no doubt that petitioners
have not approached with clean hands while invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.; rather suppressed the
material facts with bad faith.
12. Consequently, this Court is left with no other option, except to
dismiss the petitions with costs.
13. Resultantly, all these petitions are dismissed with costs of
8 of 9
::: Downloaded on – 19-04-2025 01:56:54 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:047159
CRM-M No. 33584-2021 (O&M) & other connected cases
9
Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh).
14. Costs be deposited with Punjab and Haryana High Court
Employees Welfare Association, Account No. 37167209613, IFSC
Code:SBIN0050306, State Bank of India, High Court Branch, Chandigarh
within a period of four weeks from today.
15. Needless to say that interim order dated 31.08.2021 and
extended from time to time shall come to an end automatically.
16. Above observations be not construed as an opinion on the
merits of the case, in any manner.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected
cases.
05.04.2025 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
Harish Kumar JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 19-04-2025 01:56:54 :::