S.N.H.ZAIDI, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the applicant, leaned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material placed on record.
(2.) THE applicant, through this appli­cation under section 482 Cr.P.C, has in­voked the inherent powers of this Court with the prayers that order dated 29.1.2010 rejecting his application for discharge moved under section 227 Cr.P.C. and the order dated 8.2.2010 issuing non-bailable warrant against him passed in S.T. No. 460/2009 State v. Shiv Kumar @ Chho-takannu under sections 147, 148, 149, 452, 302, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Isa Nagar, District Kheri, ending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.I, Lucknow as well as the supplementary charge-sheet filed against him, be quashed. Learned A.G.A. has raised pre­liminary objections against the maintain­ability of this application on the ground that though writ, revision and applications under section 482 Cr.P.C. relating to the said Sessions Trial have been filed wherein the supplementary charge-sheet filed against him and others has been challenged but in para 1 of this application it has wrongly been stated to be the first applica­tion. Further, the applicant has deliberately concealed about the order passed by this Court on 6.2.2002 in Criminal Revision No. 216 of 1995, whereby, on the request of the accused revisionist this Court had allowed him two months time to surrender before the Magistrate but without disclosing about the said order dated 6.2.2002 he obtained a different order on 8.2.2002 from a different Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1337/2001 (Krishna Kumar @ Siya Ram v. State of U.P.). Learned Counsel for the applicant, however, disputes the above contentions and submits that nothing has been con­cealed from the Court and in the copy of the impugned order dated 29.1.2010, An-nexure No. 11 to the application, the Trial Court has reproduced the order of this Court dated 6.2.2002 passed in the said re­vision and it is the first application in re­spect of the present cause of action.
(3.) THOUGH the applicant, in para 11 of the application, has stated about the fil­ing of the Criminal Revision No. 216 of 1995 but he has not disclosed about the or­der dated 6.2.2002 passed in that revision. The applicant has, therefore, not come before this Court with clean hands and ap­pears to have deliberately concealed about that order in his petition. It is also not the first petition challenging the supplemen­tary charge-sheet as in earlier application filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. (Crl. Misc. Case No. 1337/2010) the supplementary charge-sheet was challenged. The applica­tion is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.;