Delhi District Court
Anju Chauhan vs Seema Sharma And Ors on 3 July, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. PURSHOTAM PATHAK, ASJ-05,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS : DELHI
DLST010039492024
CA/162/2024
Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors.
Smt. Anju Chauhan
W/o Sh. K. S. Sharma
R/o D-60, First Floor, Left Side
Paryawaran Complex, Saket
New Delhi-110030 ..... APPELLANT
Vs.
1. Seema Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Abhay Ram Sharma
R/o E-9, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi-110016
2. Pritpal Singh
S/o Late Sh. Karma Singh
R/o L-44 Lajpat Nagar-II
New Delhi
3. Vijay Kumar
Assessment and Collector Dept.
R. K. Puram
New Delhi
4. Indu Bala
Assessment and Collector Dept.
R. K. Puram,
New Delhi
5. Suresh Chand
Assessment and Collector Dept.
R. K. Puram,
New Delhi ......... RESPONDENT
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 1 of 15 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.07.04
15:23:45
+0530
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 26.04.2024
ARGUMENTS HEARD ON : 27.03.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT : 03.07.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 23.03.2024, passed by the court of Ld. MM-06, South, Saket, New Delhi, whereby application of appellant for initiating proceedings under Section 340 r/w Section 195 Cr.P.C against officials of MCD namely Vijay Kumar, Indu Bala and Suresh Chand was rejected.
2. Before moving to the merits of the present appeal, at the outset, it is pertinent to mention that the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, after delay. Appellant has filed a separate application explaining the reasons for delay in filing of present appeal. It is stated, in the application, that the appellant is the senior citizen and due to ill health, the appeal in question could not be filed within prescribed time. Hence, it is prayed that the delay may be condoned. I do not find any deliberate attempt on part of the appellant in avoiding the filing of appeal. The condonation application is allowed and delay stands condoned.
3. The Ld. Magistrate has noted the factual position as under :-
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.04 CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 2 of 15 15:23:49 +0530 "It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that being the legal heir of late Shakuntla Devi, complainant Manju Sharma filed RTI before, the assessment and collector Department MCD, R. K. Puram, New Delhi for knowing the status of the property which belonged to her mother i.e. property bearing no. E-9, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. After filing the RTI and PIO of Assessment and collector Department MCD R. K. Puram, New Delhi called the complainant for inspection of the file and after inspecting the file and seeing the original forged and fabricated NOC of her and rest of her sisters in the original property filed in Assessment and Collector Department MCD R. K. Puram it came to knowledge that her younger sister Seema Sharma filed forged and fabricated NOC on her behalf and on behalf of her rest of sisters for transferring the property in her favour and also sold out mezzanine and first floor to Preetpal Singh. When it came to her knowledge, she applied for obtaining the complete copy of documents of the property. After getting the copy of the property under RTI Act they lodged the complainant against Seema Sharma and Preetpal Singh for criminal breach of trust. In the pre summoning evidence, complainant moved the application for producing original forged and fabricated NOC which were filed before Assessment and Collector Department MCD, R. K. Puram during the mutation of the property in favour of Seema Sharma. The Court issued summons for producing the complete file. Vijay Kumar Superintendent, House Tax Department MCD R. K. Puram brought the complete file but the said forged and fabricated NOC was not present in the file. But the said NOC was present during the inspection of the file by the complainant and also while obtaining copy under RTI Act. Thereafter Court also issued summons to higher officers of MCD, Assessment and Collector Department and thereafter Ms. Indu Bala, AMC and Suresh Chand Jain Retired Superintendent along with Vijay Kumar appeared and the court also recorded statement regarding disappearing the evidence. The said NOC is the backbone for proving the case of the complainant. Accused Seema and Preetpal Singh along with the MCD officials are trying to mislead the court. The MCD officers are hand in gloves with the accused persons and gave false statement before the court on 24.05.2018 and 03.08.2018 with the ulterior motive to disappear relevant evidence and to protect accused persons. Thus, they had prayed for conducting inquiry, recording finding to that effect, making a complaint in writing and sending the same to the court of jurisdiction by initiating stern action u/s 340 Cr.P.C. against the MCD officials. Further he had also prayed for initiating contempt proceedings against respondents and for issuing directions for registration of FIR under the relevant provisions of IPC."
4. The application of appellant u/s 340 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by Ld. MM vide order dated 23.03.2024 by Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 3 of 15 PATHAK Date:
2025.07.04 15:23:52 +0530 passing detailed order with following relevant observations:-
"Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides for procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. When an application is made in that behalf and any court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence referred to in Section 195(i) (b) which appears to have been committed in or relation to the proceedings in that court, in respect of a document produced or given in an evidence in proceedings in that court, the court may after making preliminary inquiry record the findings to that effect and make a complaint in writing and send it to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. In the present case, the applicant had alleged that Vijay Kumar MCD R. K. Puram and Suresh Chand Jain retired Superintendent were summoned in the case CT No. 463651/2016 "Manju Sharma Vs. Seema Sharma" and being MCD officials they were involved in criminal conspiracy with respondents Seema Sharma and Preetpal and had deliberately given the false evidence before the court that the forged NOC on the basis of which respondent Seema Sharma got her name registered in the sale deed in her name was not present in their file. In support of the allegations of the applicant no evidence is put forth by them to show that any kind of conspiracy exist between Vijay Kumar Sharma and Suresh Chand Jain with Seema Sharma and Preetpal. Though both the witnesses had appeared before the court and had stated that original alleged forged NOC are not present in their SDMC file but merely on the basis of the said statement it cannot be stated that he had given such version in conspiracy with respondent Seema Sharma and Preetpal. Probably the said document forged NOC must not traceable at the said relevant time when the property record was summoned by the court. Thus, there is no reason for initiating inquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. and the application is without merits and is dismissed as not maintainable."
5. The appellant aggrieved by the impugned order of Ld. MM, has preferred the present appeal on following grounds:-
i. that the impugned order passed by Ld. MM is unjust, improper and against the facts as well as the law and hence liable to be set-aside. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 4 of 15 2025.07.04 15:23:58 +0530 ii. that the Ld. MM has failed to appreciate the fact that the respondent no. 3 to 5 have given false evidence before the Ld. Trial Court and hence they committed perjury.
iii.that the offence of perjury has been committed in or in relation to a proceedings in that court, hence, the said act is offence against public justice and it comes within the purview of Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
iv. that the respondent no. 3 to 5 have made false statement on oath before the Ld. Trial Court and let an appropriate inquiry be initiated u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
v. that the perjury committed by the respondents herein is deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely as there is prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance.
vi.that the act of the respondents giving false evidence before the Hon'ble Court is the glaring case of deliberate falsehood.
vii.that the forged NOCs available on record of the official file of the Govt. Office of MCD cannot be disappeared without the active connivance of the respondent no. 3 to
5.
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. counsel for the appellant.
Digitally signed by CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 5 of 15 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.04 15:24:02 +0530
7. It was submitted by learned counsel for appellant that respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 have made false statements before the court of Ld. MM in conspiracy with respondent no. 1 and 2 which has affected the administration of justice.
He submitted that the appellant had received the copy of forged NOCs when she applied under Right to Information Act but the respondent no. 3, 4 and 5 have deliberately not produced the same during the court proceedings. He prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by learned MM.
8. Ld. Counsel in support of his contentions has relied upon following judgments i.e. Monk Estates Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Govt of NCD of Delhi dated 10.01.2023 passed by Delhi High Court, Monk Estates Pvt. Limited Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi dated 08.02.2023, passed by Delhi High Court, Monk Estates Pvt. Limited Vs. Govt of NCT of Delhi dated 27.07.2023, passed by Delhi High Court, Balendra Kumar V. PIO, M/s Labour & Employment. CIC dated 20.04.2017, Shahzad Singh Vs. PIO, Department of Posts Santokh Singh Chawla Vs. State of NCT of Delhi Crl.M.C. 3195/2023 and Crl. M.A. 11964/2023 dated 31.07.2023, M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc AIR 2020 SCC 4247, M. R. Ajayan Vs. State of Kerala & Ors dated 20.11.2024, Ashok Gulbarao Bondre Vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh & Ors. CA No. 1931/2011 dated 12.04.2023, Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. Dated 11.03.2005 AIR 2005 SCC 2119 and Sachida Nand Singh And Anr. Vs. PURSHOTTAM PATHAK CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 6 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.07.04 15:24:06 +0530 State of Bihar and Anr dated 03.02.1998 AIR 1998 SCC 1121.
9. It appears that the appellant had moved an application under Section 340 r/w 195 Cr.P.C. before the court of Ld. MM, South, wherein she prayed for initiation of proceedings against the erring officials of MCD namely Sh. Vijay Kumar, Ms. Indu Bala and Sh. Suresh Chand.
10. Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides procedures in cases mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Section 195 Cr.P.C. provides for the manner in which court shall take cognizance for various offences under IPC.
11. Section 340 Cr.P.C. very specifically provides that when any court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to u/s 195(1) (b) Cr.P.C., which appears to have been committed in or in relation to proceedings in that court, such court may after such preliminary inquiry, if any as it thinks necessary record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing to the magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. It is now well settled that the Court is not bound to make a complaint. Complaint will be made only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not in every case.
12. Now coming to the facts of the present case under consideration, the appellant has alleged that the respondent CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 7 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.04 15:24:10 +0530 no. 3 to 5 were involved in criminal conspiracy with respondents Seema Sharma and Preetpal and have deliberately given the false evidence before the court that the forged NOCs on the basis of which respondent Seema Sharma got her name registered in the sale deed was not present in their file. It has been submitted that the respondent no. 3 to 5 were duty bound to produce the NOC s and failure on the part of respondents makes them liable to face action u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
13. Now, it is to be seen whether the allegations of not producing the NOCs by respondent no. 3 to 5 when summons were issued to them to produce the file containing the NOCs which were filed before assessment and collector department, MCD R.K Puram, during mutation of property, in favour of Seema Sharma on behalf of the appellant and her other sisters, is such that it necessitates initiations of proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
14. The case no. 463651/2016 was filed by the appellant and during the pendency of said case, notice was issued by the Ld. Magistrate to the respondent no. 3 to 5 to produce alleged forged NOCs . As per the submissions of appellant the copy of forged NOCs was supplied to her under RTI Act but originals were not produced by MCD officials deliberately in conspiracy with respondent no. 1 and 2 which has affected the administration of justice.
Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.07.04 15:24:14 +0530 CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 8 of 15
15. Admittedly the proceedings under section 200 CrPC is still pending and appellant wants to invoke section 340 CrPC. No exceptional circumstances have been shown which entitles the appellant to invoke an proceeding u/s 340 CrPC even when section 200 CrPC case is still pending and Ld Magistrate has not taken any clear view regarding acceptability of complaint case.
16. Ld. Magistrate has rightly observed that merely on the basis of statements made by respondent no. 3 to 5 that the original alleged forged NOCs are not present in SDMC file, it can not be stated that they have given such version in conspiracy with the respondent Seema Sharma and Preetpal. Ld. Magistrate has further rightly observed that probably the said documents must not be traceable at the said relevant time when the property record was summoned by the court. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it can not be said that respondent no. 3 to 5 made a false statement before court by not producing the NOCs.
17. Further, law is well settled that it is not in every case of falsehood that proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C ought to be resorted to. It must be resorted to only in rare cases and where it is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice.
18. In the case of Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhey Shyam & Another (1971) 1 SCC 774, it was held by Hon'ble Apex Court that prosecution for perjury should be ordered when it is expedient in the interest of justice to punish the CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 9 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.04 15:24:21 +0530 delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. Moreover, the prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by the courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely,
19. In the case of Jagjit Kaur vs. Lieutenant Colonel Harjeet Singh 2000 (1) JCC Delhi 28, facts were that in a divorce case filed by the husband against his wife, the wife filed an affidavit for claiming maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act stating therein that she was not able to maintain herself and her minor daughters. Maintenance was allowed by the court but later on it was found that the wife was a teacher during that period. The husband filed an application under section 340 Criminal Procedure Code against the wife.
20. Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that:- "the provisions of section 340 are intended to provide safeguard against criminal prosecution on insufficient grounds filed against a party by his opponent motivated by a revengeful desire to harass the opponent. It is not the law that every false statement should attract the provisions of section 340 Cr. P. C. If the Court is to notice every falsehood that is sworn to by the parties in courts there would be very little time for courts for any serious work other than directing prosecution for perjury. The gravity of the false statement, the circumstances under which such statement is made, the object of making false statement and its tendency to impede and impair the normal flow of the course of Justice are matters for consideration. Considering the circumstances under which the wife made an affidavit the High Court held that it seems that the object of filing the application was not so much to vindicate the purity of the administration of justice but to punish husband. Once it is held that the motivation behind the application was to gratify his feelings of revenge, then automatically a finding on the issue of expediency must be recorded against the Digitally CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 10 of 15 signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.04 15:24:25 +0530 husband. Judicial process should not be allowed to be used as an instrument of oppression and harassment".
21. In the case of "Iqbal Singh Marwah V. Meenakshi Marwah" AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2119, a constitution bench of hon'ble SC observed as follows:
" 18. In view of the language used in Section 340, Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(i) .
(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)
(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remedy less.
Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remedy less, has to be discarded."
"19. There is another consideration which has to be kept in mind. Subsection (1) of Section 340, Cr.P.C. contemplates holding of a preliminary enquiry. Normally, a direction for filing of a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding before the Court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and the final judgment is rendered. Section 341 provides for an appeal against an order directing filing of the complaint. The hearing and ultimate decision of the appeal is bound to take time. Section 343(2) CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 11 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date:
2025.07.04 15:24:31 +0530 confers a discretion upon a Court trying the complaint to adjourn the hearing of the case if it is brought to its notice that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen. In view of these provisions, the complaint case may not proceed at all for decades specially in matters arising out of civil suits where decisions are challenged in successive appellate fora which are time consuming. It is also to be noticed that there is no provision of appeal against an order passed under Section 343(2), whereby hearing of the case is adjourned until the decision of the appeal. These provisions show that, in reality, the procedure prescribed for filing a complaint by the Court is such that it may not fructify in the actual trial of the offender for an unusually long period. Delay in prosecution of a guilty person comes to his advantage as witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and the evidence gets lost. This important consideration dissuades us from accepting the broad interpretation sought to be placed upon clause
(b)(ii)."
"20. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh, after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the Court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of society at large. AIR 1998 SC 1121 : 1998 AIR SCW 932 : 1998 Cri LJ 1565."
22. In 1995 CRI. L. J. 1751 "Kuriakose V. State of Kerala" it is held that, It is not in all cases when witnesses speak falsehood that action shall be initiated against him for perjury by invoking S. 340 of Criminal P.C. There must me prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Court that such a proceeding should be initiated "for the interests of justice" and that there is prima facie evidence to come to the conclusion that false evidence has been tendered. In the absence of those conditions, the Court will not be justified in proceeding with the matter. Also, the gravity of the false statement, the circumstance under which such statement is made, the object of making such statement and its tendency to impede and impair normal flow of the course of justice are matters for consideration when the Court decides on the propriety of instituting a CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 12 of 15 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.07.04 15:24:38 +0530 complaint for perjury. Thus, the power under S. 340 of the Code should be used with care and due consideration. If the court is to notice every falsehood that is sworn to by parties in Courts, there would be very little for Courts for any serious work other than directing prosecution for perjury. (Paras 4, 9) In 1997 CRI. L. J. 816 "Jose Kuruvinakunnel V. A. T. Jose" it is observed that, Therefore, it is clear that prosecution can be initiated by resorting to Section 340 of Cr. P. C. only in cases where it is expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute the party and prima facie evidence is adduced in that behalf and the provisions of Section 340 of Cr. P. C. cannot be resorted to lightly on the mere allegations, or to vindicate personal vendetta. (Para 30) In AIR 1971 SUPREME COURT 1935 "Patel Laljibhai Somabhai V. State of Gujarat" it is held, "The underlying purpose of enacting S. 195 (1) (b) and (c) and S. 476 seems to be to control the temptation on the part of the private parties considering themselves aggrieved by the offences mentioned in those sections to start criminal prosecutions on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds inspired by a revengeful desire to harass or spite their opponents. These offences have been selected for the court's control because of their direct impact on the judicial process. It is the judicial process, in other words the administration of public justice, which is the direct and immediate object or victim of those offences and it is only by misleading the courts and thereby perverting the due course of law and justice that the ultimate object of harming the private party is designed to be realized.
As the purity of the proceedings of the court is directly sullied by the crime, the Court is considered to be the only party entitled to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party. The private party designed ultimately to be injured through the offence against the administration of public justice is undoubtedly entitled to move the court for persuading it to file the complaint. But such party is deprived of the general right recognized by S. 190 Cr. P. C. of the aggrieved parties directly initiating the criminal proceedings. The offences about which the court alone, to the exclusion of the aggrieved private parties, is clothed with the right to complain may, therefore, be appropriately considered to be only those offences committed by a party to a proceeding in that court, the commission of which has a reasonably close nexus with the proceedings in that Court so that it can, without embarking upon a completely independent and fresh inquiry, satisfactorily consider by reference principally to its records the expediency of prosecuting the delinquent party. It, therefore, appears to us to be more appropriate to adopt the strict construction of confining the prohibition contained in Section 195 (1) (c) only to those cases in which the offences specified therein were committed by a party to the proceeding in the character as such party."
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 13 of 15 Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Date: 2025.07.04 15:24:42 +0530
23. AIR 1973 SUPREME COURT 2190 " Santosh Singh V. Izhar Hussain" it is held:-
" Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Two frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely, that the court should direct prosecution." (Para 11) 1994 CRI.L.J 48 "Thomman V. Iind Addl.. Sessions Judge,Ernakulam" also it is held , "It is not any and every statement made by a witness that the court would wish to examine. If the court is to notice every falsehood that is sworn to by parties in courts there could be very little time for courts for any serious work other than directing prosecution for perjury. Again the edge of such weapon would become blunted by indiscriminate use. The gravity of the false statement, the circumstances under which such statement is made, the object of making such statement and its tendency to impede and impair the normal flow of the course of justice are matters for consideration when the court decides on the propriety of instituting a complaint for perjury (vide Muraleekrishna Das v. I.G. of Police, 1978 Ker LT 292)".
24. Ld. magistrate has given sufficient reasons to decline the prayer of appellant. Ld. Magistrate was not bound to initiate action u/s 340 CrPC as the said provision clearly gives a discretionary power and unless judicial system is disturbed by the Act of any person, power under section 340 CrPC should not be invoked.
25. There is no dispute as to the legal preposition laid down in the judgments cited by the appellant. However, same are not applicable to the facts of present case.
Digitally
signed by
PURSHOTTAM
PURSHOTTAM PATHAK
PATHAK Date:
2025.07.04
15:24:56
+0530
CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 14 of 15
26. In view of aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that appeal filed by appellant appears to be without merits and is accordingly dismissed.
27. TCR be sent back to Ld Trial Court along with copy of this judgment.
28. A copy of this judgment be supplied to Ld. Counsel forthwith.
29. Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Digitally signed by PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.07.04 15:25:03 +0530 ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT (PURSHOTAM PATHAK) TODAY ON THIS ASJ-05(SOUTH) th 03 DAY OF JULY, 2025 SAKET COURTS: N.D (This judgment contains total 15 signed pages) CA/162/2024 Anju Chauhan Vs. Seema Sharma and Ors. Page no. 15 of 15