IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Revision Petition No. 228 of 2003(O&M) Date of Decision: 10.12.2009 Joginder Singh and others. ....... Petitioners through Shri M.S.Sidhu, Advocate. Versus State of Punjab and others. .......Respondent No.1 through Shri Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Additional Advocate General. Respondent nos.2 to 23 through Shri Munish Gupta, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER .... 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? .... Mahesh Grover,J. This revision petition is directed against order dated 25.11.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib (hereinafter described as `the trial Court') vide which respondent nos. 2 to 23, who were sent up to face trial in a case registered on the basis of the complaint made by Kisan/Harijan Union of Village Jago Chanarthal through the present petitioners, vide F.I.R.No.60 dated 31.10.1999 under Sections 447, 379, 427, 148, 149 of the I.P.C. and Section 3(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Crl. Revision No.228 of 2003 -2- .... Act,1989, at Police Station, Mulepur, have been discharged. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there was sufficient material before the trial Court on the basis of which the charge could be framed against respondent nos. 2 to 23. He placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa Versus Debendra Nath Padhi, 2005(1) S.C.C. 568, to contend that the trial Court had no jurisdiction to allow respondent nos. 2 to 23 to produce any document at the time of framing of charge nor could it allow them to seek production of any document. With reference to the impugned order, he submitted that the material which was produced by respondent nos. 2 to 23 could not have been produced and the same could not have been appraised by the trial Court while framing a charge as it was clearly precluded from looking at any material except the one which was the part of challan. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioners were in possession of the disputed land which possession was violated by respondent nos. 2 to 23. He argued that in view of this clear-cut material, respondent nos. 2 to 23 were guilty of having trespassed upon the disputed land and the charge ought to have been framed against them. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 23 contended that the petition deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground that the petitioners have concealed material facts from the Court. He referred to the averments which have been made in paragraph 5 of this petition in order to establish the possession of the petitioners over the suit land, but order dated 15.10.1999 vide which C.W.P.No.3585 of 1999 was Crl. Revision No.228 of 2003 -3- .... allowed, was challenged in L.P.A.No.1059 of 1999 and the same was set aside by the Division Bench and the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (No.18724 of 2000) was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13.3.2002, whereas the instant petition was filed in the year 2003 without disclosing these facts. He further contended that the lease in favour of the petitioners was only upto 30.4.1999 and thereafter, there was no material on record from which it could be inferred that they were in possession of the disputed land. I have thoughtfully considered the rival contentions and have gone through the impugned order, as also the other documents on record. There is, indeed, no doubt that a person, who does not approach the Court with clean hands, is not entitled to any relief. In the instant case, the petitioners have clearly misled this Court as no reference has been made to the proceedings in the Letters Patent Appeal and the Petition for Special Leave to Appeal. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 23 that even though the petitioners had filed the revision petition in the year 2003, yet, the orders in Letters Patent Appeal and Petition for Special Leave to Appeal which came into existence in the year 2000 and 2002 were withheld from the Court in order to create an impression that they were in possession of land which possession was violated by respondent nos. 2 to 23. They have, thus, concealed these material facts and, therefore, they do not deserve any indulgence from this Court only on this ground. In Hari Narain Versus Badri Dass, AIR 1963 S.C. 1558; Crl. Revision No.228 of 2003 -4- .... Welcome Hotel and others Versus State of A.P. & Ors., AIR 1983 S.C. 1015; G.Narayanaswamy Reddy and anr. Versus State of Karnataka, AIR 1991 S.C. 1726; S.P.Chenqalvarara Naidu (dead) by Lrs Versus Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs., JT 1993(6) S.C. 331; R.G.Sinde Versus State of Maharashtra, AIR 1994 S.C. 1673; Chint Ram Ram Chand & ors Versus State of Punjab ors., AIR 1996 S.C. 1406 and in a number of other judgments, the Supreme Court and in Bhupinder kaur Versus Financial Commissioner (Revenue), Punjab, (1968) 70 P.L.R. 169; Chiranji Lal & ors. Versus Financial Commissioner, Haryana & Ors., (1978) 80 PLR 582; Harbhajan Kaur Versus State of Punjab and others, 1994 P.L.J. 287; M/S Kaka ram Pars Ram & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors., 1996(1) PLR 691 and a series of other judgments, this Court, have held that when a party is guilty of misleading and suppression of facts, it is not entitled to any relief from the Court. Having regard to the law laid down in the above referred cases as well as the facts of the instant case, the petition is dismissed. December 10,2009 ( Mahesh Grover ) “SCM” Judge