Case: VINEET HANDA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

1. Taken on board. This petition is directed against order dated 03.04.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby he dismissed the petition filed by the Petitioner u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. for quashing the First Information Report registered on 06.02.2008 at Police Station DLF Phase II, against the Petitioner and 16 others under Sections 420, 406, 409, 415, 468, 471, 34 and 120E of the Indian Penal Code and order dated 8.3.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon whereby the concerned officer declined to accept the cancellation report filed by the Investigating Agency and took cognizance against the Petitioner and other-persons named as accused for offences under Sections 406/420/467/468 and 120B Indian Penal Code. 2. The Petitioner had filed Criminal Misc.-M No. 10651/2011 u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. on 18.04.2011 for quashing the First Information Report and the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Registry of the High Court listed the case before the learned Single Judge on that very day. When the Petitioners counsel found that the learned Judge is not inclined to entertain the petition, he made a request for permission to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The relevant portions of order dated 18.4.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge are extracted below: Learned Counsel for the Petitioner wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under law. Dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. 3. After some time, Criminal Misc.-M No. 21409 of 2011 was filed by R.C. Berri and Ors. u/s 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. for quashing of FIR No. 177 dated 8.6.2007 registered under Sections 406/409/420 Indian Penal Code at Police Station DLF Phase II, Gurgaon and also for setting aside order dated 8.3.2011 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. 4. The Registry of the High Court should have obtained order from the Chief Justice for listing of Criminal Misc.-M No. 21409 of 2011 before the Bench which had decided similar matter on 18.4.2011 but this was not done and the case was listed before another Bench which passed order dated 18.7.2011 and stayed the implementation of order dated 8.3.2011 resulting in frustration of further proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. When the complainant brought to the notice of the Court that Criminal Misc.-M No. 10651 of 2011 filed by the Petitioner had been dismissed on 18.4.2011, the learned Single Judge passed order dated 13.03.2012 and clarified that the stay order passed by him will not operate in favour of any person other than those who were Petitioners in the 19 petitions. 6. Immediately after passing of order dated 13.03.2012, the Petitioner filed Criminal Misc.-M No. 9588 of 2012 and again prayed for quashing of the FIR and the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 7. The learned Judge who heard the second petition noticed the background facts and apparently contradictory orders passed by the two Benches of the High court and proceeded to observe: A combined reading of the above said material aspects of the matter would show that the first quashing petition, in point of time, seems to have been filed by the present Petitioner, being the Managing Director of the Company, bearing Criminal Misc. M No. 10651 of 2011 but that was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to avail alternative remedy, in accordance with law. Thereafter, as many as 19 quashing petitions came to be filed by other directors/officers of the company proceeding on a very clever device. I say so because no reference of order dated 18.04.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc-M No. 10651 of 2011 titled as Vineet Handa v. state of Haryana and another reproduced above, has been made in the later petitions including Criminal Misc.-M No. 21409 of 2011, except in one bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-22933 of 2011. 8. The learned Judge refused to believe that the Directors and officers of the company were not aware of order dated 18.4.2011 passed in Criminal Misc.-M No. 10651 of 2011 and observed: In this view of the matter, it does not appeal to reason at all that Directors/Officers of the same Company would not be aware about the above said order dated 18.04.2011 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc.-M No. 10651 of 2011 filed by the Managing Director of the company. It also does not appeal to reason that the Directors/Officers of the company would have filed as many as 19 quashing petitions without the knowledge and approval of their managing Director. In either of the situations, the only irresistible conclusion is that the Petitioner and his other co-accused who have filed as many as 19 quashing petitions before this Court have successfully misled this Court by intentionally withholding and concealing the very material fact of passing of order dated 18.4.2011 because of which the order dated 18.07.2011 came to be passed. 9. The learned judge then referred to the judgment of this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others etc., and held that by filing the second petition with similar prayer, the Petitioner had indirectly sought review of order dated 18.4.2011, which was legally impermissible. The learned Judge also opined that the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief because he has not approached the Court with clean hands. The learned Judge then considered the scope of Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure., referred to the judgment in Davinder Pal Singh Bhullars case (supra) and dismissed the petition with cost of Rs. 20.000/-. 10. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and carefully perused the record. In our view, the second petition filed by the Petitioner was a gross abuse of the process of the Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court rightly declined to entertain the same on the ground that the same was not maintainable and also on merits.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]10. We have heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and carefully perused the record. In our view, the second petition filed by the Petitioner was a gross abuse of the process of the Court and the learned Single Judge of the High Court rightly declined to entertain the same on the ground that the same was not maintainable and also on merits.