S V S SIVANATH Vs. K S DHIYANESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above petition is filed seeking to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in C.C.No.51 of 2004 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madurai and quash the same.

(2.) THE fact leading to the filing of the above petition is set out hereunder: One Sri.K.L.N.Krishnan has established two educational institutions, namely KLN College of Engineering and KLN College of Information and Technology and a society was formed in the name of "K.L.N.Sourashtra College of Engineering Council, Madurai" having its registered office at No.69, South Veli Street, Madurai. THE said society was registered under Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act in the office of the Registrar of Societies, Madurai. THE society is governed by separate Bye-laws and Rules. THE society consists of General Council as well as the Managing Committee, which is a premier agency. After several years of establishment of the said society, certain disputes have crept in amongst the member of the General Council. A dispute has also crept in about the actual number of members of the Council.

(3.) A perusal of the complaint made by the respondent herein before the Chief Judicial Magistrate proceeds to the effect that the petitioners have violated the bye-law in the matter of purchase of vehicles and thereby committed the offence, namely criminal breach of trust. In the vetry same complaint, a specific reference is made about the petition submitted by one K.R.S.Maneckshaw Babu, who is one of the members of the Council, before the District Registrar (South), and the details about the enquiry conducted by the said Authority. Even though the enquiry conducted by the statutory Authority was referred to, the complainant has not chosen to disclose the final order that was passed subsequently. In fact, the District Registrar, in pursuance of the power conferred upon hum under Sec.36 of the Co-operative Societies Act, has passed a detailed order on 29.11.2002 dismissing the petition as devoid of merit. Even though the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the said proceedings is the subject matter of connected writ proceedings, it cannot be lost sight of and even though the final order was passed as early as on 29.11.2002, the said fact was completely suppressed in the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23.3.2004. It cannot be suggested that the respondent is totally ignorant of the result of the petition filed by K.R.S Maneckshaw Babu, inasmuch as he has chosen to furnish elaborate details about the petition given by the said individual amd manner in which the enquiry was conducted. Since the said petition was dismissed as devoid of merits, the respondent/ defacto complainant has conveniently suppressed the said fact before the learned Magistrate. The above act of the respondent/complainant discloses that he has not approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate with clean hands. It is a fundamental principle of jurisprudence that the Courts should not grant relief to a person, who has not approached with clean hands. In the instant case, the suppression of the a bove fact is a deliverate act of the complainant.