PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant against the order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No. 1843 of 2009 Jaspreet Singh Vs. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum dismissing complaint was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner filed complaint before District Forum and submitted that complainant was joint holder of 28 FDRs along with his wife Smt. Lata Singh. These FDRs were matured on 29.9.2008. Complainant deposited original FDRs on 1.9.2008 for release of maturity amount, but he came to know that Rs.7.52 lakhs FDR amount has already been withdrawn before the date of maturity on 9.11.2006 without any consent or signatures of the petitioner on the basis of forged and fabricated documents with the connivance of Smt. Lata Singh and officials of OP/respondent. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complaint was filed. OP resisted complaint and submitted that complainant has not come with clean hands and has suppressed material facts. It was further submitted that Smt. Lata Singh has already taken payment and for the purpose of taking double payment in connivance with Smt. Lata Singh, the complainant has filed this complaint. Lata Singh has not been impleaded as a party; hence, complaint be dismissed. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties, dismissed complaint against which, appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at admission stage and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent has released payment on the basis of duplicate FDRs obtained by forged signatures of the complainant; hence, revision petition be admitted. 5. Perusal of record and copies of FDRs clearly reveals that 7 FDRs of the value of 3.50 lakhs were in the name of Smt. Lata Singh and complainant was nominee and 9 FDRs worth Rs.4.02 lakhs were in the name of Smt. Lata Singh jointly with complainant. Smt. Lata Singh vide letter dated 29.8.2006 requested for change of her residential address and for issuance of duplicate FDRs. Pre-mature payment was withdrawn on submission of indemnity bond which were signed by Smt. Lata Singh and complainant. Amount of FDRs was transferred in the account of Smt. Lata Singh. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Smt Lata Singh forged signatures of complainant and has taken pre-mature payment of the FDRs. Apparently, this argument is devoid of force, as 7 FDRs were in the name of Smt. Lata Singh and she was entitled to get pre-mature payment and as far as another 9 FDRs are concerned, they were also in the name of Lata Singh jointly with the complainant and duplicate FDRs were issued only on submission of indemnity bond signed by Smt. Lata Singh and complainant. Complainant has not proved by any cogent evidence that signatures were forged by Smt. Lata Singh on the letter of request and indemnity bond and in such circumstances; apparently, no deficiency can be imputed on the part of respondents. 6. Perusal of record clearly reveals that complainant himself has not come with clean hands. In the complaint, he has shown himself to be owner of 28 FDRs, whereas 7 FDRs were exclusively in the name of Smt. Lata Singh and 9 FDRs were in the name of Smt. Lata Singh jointly with complainant. Another 7 FDRs were in the name of complainant and Smt. Lata Singh was nominee and other 5 FDRs worth Rs.2.50 lakhs were in the name of complainant jointly with Smt. Lata Singh. Complainant should have clearly stated in the complaint about holders of the FDRs, but he has given wrong facts in the complaint. Honle Apex Court in Faquir Chand Gulati Vs. M/s. Uppal Agencies P. Ltd. & Anr. Special Leave Petition (C ) No. 18225-18226 of 2011 dated 14.08.2011 observed: rom what we have stated above, it is clear that the petitioner has not approached the Court with clean hands. Therefore, he is not entitled to be head on the merits of his grievance. Reference in this connection can usefully be made to the judgment of this Court in Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. (2010) 2 SCC 114, the first two paragraphs of which are extracted below; or many centuries Indian Society cherished two basic values of life i.e. atya(truth) and hinsa(non-violence) Mahavir, Gautam Budha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in vogue in the pre-Independence era and the people use to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppressions of facts in the court proceedings. 2. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed to not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final 7. No only this, Smt. Lata Singh was necessary party in the complaint and complainant has purposely not impleaded Smt. Lata Singh as a party to the complaint and without impleading Smt. Lata Singh as a party, who was necessary party, complaint was not maintainable. 8. If signatures of the complainant were forged by Smt. Lata Singh on the letter of request for issuance of duplicate FDR or on bonds submitted before respondent, complainant should have approached to the civil court because in summary proceedings, question of forging documents cannot be decided. 9. In the light of above discussion, we do not find any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.