CRM-M-11302 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-11302 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 31.05.2011 Rajesh Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. APS Luna, Advocate, for the complainant. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed seeking anticipatory bail in case FIR No.18 dated 2.4.2011 under Sections 406/498-A IPC, Police Station Women Cell, Patiala. On 19.4.2011, this Court passed the following order: - “Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is ready to settle the dispute with his wife and is further ready to return the istri dhan in his possession. Notice of motion for 9.5.2011. Meanwhile, it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioners, they shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer on furnishing personal bond and one surety of Rs.20,000/- each subject to the following conditions: i) that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; ii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to CRM-M-11302 of 2011 (O&M) -2- any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; iii) that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, on instructions from SI Surjeet Kaur, who is personally present in the Court, as well as Mr. APS Luna, learned counsel appearing for the complainant, state that petitioner has not returned any istri dhan as undertook by learned counsel for the petitioner on 19.4.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that entire istri dhan was returned to the father of the complainant/wife prior to the filing of present petition seeking anticipatory bail, therefore, there is no question of returning istri dhan once again after 19.4.2011. Had istri dhan been returned to the father of the complainant prior to 19.4.2011, there would have been no occasion for the learned counsel for the petitioner to make a statement that istri dhan shall be returned. It seems on 19.4.2011 a wrong undertaking was furnished before this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. Since petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and has given wrong undertaking on 19.4.2011, therefore, he is not entitled for any extraordinary discretionary relief. Petition is dismissed. Order dated 19.4.2011 stands revoked. (Alok Singh) Judge May 31, 2011 R.S.