Delhi District Court
Raminder Kaur vs Pushpender Singh on 13 May, 2024
CA No. 464/2023 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh & Anr.
IN THE COURT OF MS. SADHIKA JALAN,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (FTSC)(RC),
SOUTH-WEST DISTRICT, DWARKA, NEW DELHI.
In the matter of:
CNR No. DLSW01-008683-2023
Criminal Appeal No. 464/2023
Raminder Kaur
Wife of Sh. Jaspal Singh Anand
Resident of C-1/111, First Floor,
Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058
...Appellant
versus
1. Pushpinder Singh
Son of Sh. Hardev Singh
Resident of BF-34, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058
2. Taranjit Singh
Son of Sh. Jaspal Singh
Resident of WZ-544, Shiv Nagar
Gali no. 23, New Delhi.
...Respondents
Date of Institution of Appeal : 02.09.2023
Date on which Judgment reserved : 22.04.2024
Date of Judgment : 13.05.2024
Page 1 of 9
CA No. 464/2023 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh & Anr.
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 341 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as CrPC), against the impugned order dated 02.06.2023 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate (NI Act-08), South West District, Dwarka, New Delhi in CC No. 8083/2019 titled 'Pushpinder Singh v. Raminder Kaur' whereby the learned trial Court dismissed application under Section 340 CrPC filed by the appellant/accused.
2. No reply was filed to the present appeal, despite opportunity. Arguments heard.
3. The appellant has challenged the impugned order in appeal on the following grounds--
i. That the impugned order is based on assumptions and presumptions and no sound and cogent reason has been assigned while passing the said order;
ii. That the learned Metropolitan Magistrate did not apply his judicial mind and ignored the precedent and passed Page 2 of 9 CA No. 464/2023 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh & Anr.
the impugned order casually and hurriedly; iii. That the impugned order is against the law and facts of the case are not sustainable in the eyes of the law; iv. That learned trial court failed to apply judicial mind that the respondent no. 1 tendered false affidavit as well as produced copy of forged documents i.e. Ex.CW1/A (Pronote) allegedly executed by appellant/accused. The said document was blank when the signatures and thumb impressions of appellant/accused were obtained by the complainant on 01.09.2017, when he advanced Rs. 20,00,00/- through bank account to the accused and later on he, with dishonest intention and in connivance with respondent no. 2 filled it up and his friend respondent no. 2 also became part of conspiracy and signed the documents showing himself to be a witness in the said documents;
v. That the complainant as well as respondent no. 2 deposed that respondent no. 1 advanced Rs.4,50,000/- in cash and the appellant executed the alleged pronote Page 3 of 9 CA No. 464/2023 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh & Anr.
of Rs. 4,50,000/- dated 22.07.2017. Whereas respon- dent no. 2 deposed on oath in the court during cross ex- amination that he paid only Rs. 20,000/- on that date. Respondent no. 2 Taranjit also categorically deposed that amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- in cash was not paid by complainant to accused on 22.07.2017;
vi. That Ld. Trial court failed to appreciate that respondent no. 2 deposed that he did not see the respondent paying Rs. 4,50,000/- in cash to the appellant;
vii. That that witness from the bank, CW-3, produced state-
ment of bank account of respondent no. 1 which shows that complainant had not withdrawn Rs. 4,50,000/- in the month of July 2017. This further establishes that Rs.4,50,000/- was not paid in cash on 22.07.2017; viii. That the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that re-
spondent no. 1 in his cross examination stated that he had never granted loan to any other person, but there- after when questioned about Renuka, stated that he had lent her Rs 2,00,000 lakhs which she returned; Page 4 of 9 CA No. 464/2023 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh & Anr.
4. Counsel for the respondent/complainant has argued that the learned Trial Court has already considered the arguments of the appellant and passed a reasoned order which requires no interference.
5. The trial Court record was called for and has been perused. An action under Section 340 CrPC along with Section 195 CrPC, is made to ensure the administration of the court's justice system. It is a settled principle in law that the Court may order prosecution under these sections only when prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice and the public at large.
6. Succinctly put, it is the case of the appellant that respondent no. 1 had tendered a false affidavit before the learned Trial Court as well as produced forged document, Ex. CW1/1 (Pronote) which has been produced in connivance with respondent no. 2.
7. It is contended that the alleged pronote, Ex. CW1/1 is of Rs. 4.5 lakhs whereas the respondent deposed that he paid only Rs. 20,000/- on that day. Further respondent no. 2 also stated that the entire sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs was not paid in front of him.
8. In the instant matter, the impugned order has dealt with the Page 5 of 9 CA No. 464/2023 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh & Anr. submissions made by the appellant. The order has noted that in the cross-examination of the complainant/respondent, it was stated that Rs. 4.5 lakhs were paid by the respondent to the appellant, in cash, in part payments. This fact may not have been mentioned earlier, but that does not make the statement untrue at this stage.
9. The respondent during cross-examination further denied all suggestions put to him that no such payment was made. It was also the case of the appellant that the bank statement brought on record by the respondent did not show corresponding withdrawals. As noted in the impugned order, this was not the only bank account held by the respondent and statement of the other bank account never came on record.
10. Execution of Ex. CW1/1 is called into question, as it is alleged there was no payment of Rs. 4.5 lakhs on 22.07.2017. There is nothing in the evidence to say that the entire amount was not paid in parts till 22.07.2017. Further, the contentions of the appellant neither negate the pronote Ex. CW1/1 nor show that it was wrongly executed in the sum of Rs. 4.5 lakhs. Page 6 of 9 CA No. 464/2023 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh & Anr.
11. Assuming that a pronote was made for 'x' amount of money, money of which was paid in part in several tranches, and pronote was issued between the parties on the payment of the last tranche. Would then creation of a pronote for the entire amount on the last date, invalidate the pronote made. If the pronote is made with consent of all parties, with the understanding of the entire money due, the answer would be in negative. The pronote infact could have been made even in between or in the beginning for the entire amount.
12. The contention raised by the appellant is therefore are not sufficient to say that false evidence has been led by the respondents and there is a need for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
13. Reliance of the learned Trial Court was correctly placed upon the case of Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774, wherein the Court held that prosecution under Section 340 CrPC should only be ordered when it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so and not merely because there is more error or inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or Page 7 of 9 CA No. 464/2023 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh & Anr. immaterial.
14. For instance, the appellant alleged that the respondent did not mention that he had also lent money to one Renuka and did not mention her till questioned about her. However, the respondent was not required to mention her. When examined, he immediately responds to the query. The error does not appear to be one which leads the Court to feel that the error was deliberate and in furtherance of giving false evidence in Court.
15. The Constitution bench of the Supreme Court held in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370, that a Court is to exercise discretion when faced with an application under Section 340 CrPC and it is only when :
"... 'court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice'. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case...".
16. In the instant matter, in the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has made a well-reasoned and cogent determination that the inconsistencies pointed out do not merit initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
Page 8 of 9 CA No. 464/2023 Raminder Kaur v. Pushpinder Singh & Anr.
17. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the order dated 02.06.2023 passed by the learned trial court disposing of the application under Section 340 CrPC. It deserves no intervention. Present appeal lacks merits and hence stands dismissed.
18. Trial Court Record be sent back along with copy of this order.
19. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in open Court on this 13th day of May, 2024 (SADHIKA JALAN) Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Special Court (RC) South West District:
Dwarka Courts: New Delhi Page 9 of 9