Crl. Misc. No. M-10733 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-10733 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 27, 2011 Mohinder Singh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. K. S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Mohinder Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.). The petitioner filed criminal complaint against respondent no.2 Tara Chand under Section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The said complaint was dismissed in default vide impugned order dated 02.12.2010 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur. Revision petition against the said order preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed in limine by learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur, vide impugned order dated 22.12.2010 Crl. Misc. No. M-10733 of 2011 2 (Annexure P-2). In the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid orders Annexures P-1 and P-2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner could not appear in the trial court on one date of hearing i.e. 02.12.2010, and therefore, the complaint filed by the petitioner should not have been dismissed in default. The contention, although apparently attractive, is completely misconceived and devoid of merit. The contention conceals more than what it reveals. Perusal of revisional order Annexure P- 2 reveals that the petitioner took the plea before the revisional court that he could not appear in the trial court on 02.12.2010 because the petitioner- complainant was under the wrong impression that the complaint was fixed for 03.12.2010. However, this was a patently false plea taken by the petitioner because brief of his counsel, as perused by the revisional court, depicted that the complaint had been adjourned from 01.11.2010 to 02.12.2010. It thus became apparent that wrong date of hearing had not been noted by the complainant and rather he took false plea to this effect. In addition to the aforesaid, photostat copy of statement of accused-respondent no.2 was placed on record before the revisional court depicting that parties have effected compromise on 18.03.2010. It demonstrates that the petitioner-complainant intentionally did not appear in Crl. Misc. No. M-10733 of 2011 3 the trial court on 02.12.2010 because the matter had been compromised between the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pursuant to compromise, respondent no.2-accused has not paid the requisite amount to the petitioner-complainant. The contention cannot be accepted because no such plea has even been taken in the instant petition, in spite of specific observation of the revisional court. In view of the aforesaid, no ground for interference with impugned order of the courts below is made out. It may be added that the petitioner-complainant has filed the instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. because second revision petition by the same person is not maintainable. The instant petition is a second revision petition by the petitioner under the garb of provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C. This is not permissible. Moreover, the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. For this added reason as well, this Court would not like to exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner. As a necessary upshot of the discussion aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 27, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE