Back
2012 Supreme(P&H) 481
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rameshwar Singh Malik
Criminal Misc.-M No.9588 of 2012(O & M)
Vineet Handa
v.
State of Haryana & Anr.
{Decided on 03/04/2012}
For the Petitioner:Ms. Harpreet Kaur Dhillon, Advocate.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Quashing of FIR--Misuse of process of Court--Petitioner earlier sought quashing of FIR by filing Criminal Misc-M No. 10651 of 2011 which had been withdrawn by him with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under law--Filing of present petition on behalf of the same petitioner is glaring misuse of process Court--Instant petition, clearly amounts to a review petition--Petitioner has no right to be heard on merits--Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/-. (Paras 5, 26, 31 & 32)
(B) Administration of Justice--Abuse of process--Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties--Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the legal gains indefinitely--A person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court--He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation--One who come to the Court, must come with clean hands. (Para 26)
(C) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Administration of Justice--Misuse of process of Court--Petitioner and his other co-accused have filed as many as 19 quashing petitions before High Court--They have successfully misled High Court by intentionally withholding and concealing the very material fact of passing or order dated 18.4.2011--The petitioner and his co-accused had been proceeding on a calculated move making repeated and well thought efforts in furtherance of their common malafide intention--The petitioner has proceeded on a clever devise so as to overcome the hurdle of statutory bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C.--Present petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). (Paras 17, 23 & 32)
(D) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482--Inherent jurisdiction--Powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are to be exercised sparingly and with circumspection only for achieving the objects specified in the section itself--Such power cannot be exercised to do something which is expressly barred under the Cr.P.C. (Paras 29 & 30)
(E) Words & Phrase--’Waiver’--Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right--In fact, it is an agreement not to assert right--There can be no waiver unless the person who is said to have waived, is fully informed as to his rights and with full knowledge about the same, he intentionally abandons them. (Para 28)
Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik J.: - The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for quashing of FIR No.32 dated 06.02.2008 under Sections 420/406/409/415/468/471/34/120-B IPC, (hereinafter referred to as ‘FIR No. 32’), registered at Police Station DLF Phase II, Gurgaon and also for quashing of the order dated 08.03.2011(Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, vide which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, declined to accept the cancellation report dated 17.01.2009 filed by the investigating agency in FIR No.32, noted above.
2. The sole contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) is liable to be stayed on the basis of parity as the impugned order has been stayed by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2011 passed in Criminal Misc.- M No.21409 of 2011 because the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, was a composite one vide which he declined to accept the cancellation report.
3. During the course of hearing, when confronted with the order dated 18.04.2011 passed by this Court in the earlier petition filed by the petitioner bearing Criminal Misc.-M No.10651 of 2011, as to how the instant petition was maintainable, learned counsel for the petitioner had no answer. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner, instead of seeking immediate withdrawal of the present petition, tried to justify its filing for the second time contending that by way of instant petition, the petitioner is also seeking quashing of the FIR No.32 in addition to seeking quashing of the impugned order dated 08.03.2011 (Annexure P-3).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, when asked by the Court that the petitioner was very much having this right to seek quashing of FIR No.32, when he filed his earlier quashing petition bearing Criminal Misc.M- 10651 of 2011 and it would amount that the petitioner consciously waived that right, learned counsel for the petitioner had again no answer.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and with her able assistance have gone through the record of the case. After giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised and in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present case is yet another example of glaring misuse of process of Court. A well thought attempt has been made to overreach the Court because the petitioner thinks that he has means to do so. Since his earlier quashing petition bearing Criminal Misc-M No.10651 of 2011 had been withdrawn by him with liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under law, the filing of the present petition on behalf of the same petitioner speaks volumes about the intentions and demeanour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has no right to be heard on merits and the present petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
6. The present case has a chequered history. Shorn of the detailed background, it would suffice to note only the basic facts necessary for resolving the issue involved in the instant petition. It is a matter of record that petitioner approached this Court earlier also by way of Criminal Misc.-M No.10651 of 2011 titled as “Vineet Handa versus State of Haryana and another” filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.for quashing the same impugned order dated 08.03.2011, vide which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon, declined to accept the cancellation report dated 17.01.2009 filed by investigating agency in FIR No.32, registered at Police Station DLF Phase II, Gurgaon.
7. It is also a matter of record that when the above noted quashing petition bearing Criminal Misc.-M No.10651 of 2011 filed by the petitioner came up for hearing before this Court on 18.04.2011, the petitioner withd
