Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Dr Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy vs Dr B Laxmi Tulasi Reddy Alias Tulasi Rani on 18 December, 2024
APHC010419582019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 207/2020
Between:
Dr Lakshmi Narasimha Reddy ...PETITIONER
AND
Dr B Laxmi Tulasi Reddy Alias Tulasi Rani ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. M CHINNAPA REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA
The Court made the following:
2
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.207 of 2020
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the Order dated 06.09.2019 in I.A.No.22 of 2019 in unnumbered C.M.A.No.... of 2019 passed by the Principal District Judge, Kurnool.
2. Petitioner is the Appellant. The Appeal was filed questioning the order dated 23.04.2018 passed in I.A.No.68 of 2018 in HMOP.No.35 of 2012 before the District Appellate Court with a delay of 179 days and I.A.No.22 of 2019 was filed seeking to condone the delay in filing the appeal. The District Appellate Court directed the Administrative Officer to lodge a complaint against the petitioner before Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class (for Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool under Section 193 I.P.C. as the petitioner suppressed the fact of filing of CRP before this Court.
3. The brief facts of the case: The parties herein were married and a daughter was born out of their wedlock. Subsequently, as there were certain disputes between the parties, the Petitioner filed HMOP.No.35 of 2012 before Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. In the said HMOP, the Respondent filed I.A.No.68 of 2018 under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking to grant maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month 3 to her and Rs.10,000/- to her daughter from the date of filing of petition and also sought legal expenses of Rs.20,000/-. On contest, the trial Court passed an order on 23.04.2018 partly allowing the application directing the Petitioner to pay Rs.10,000/- to the daughter from the date of filing of HMOP towards maintenance.
4. The Petitioner thereafter filed C.R.P.No.3528 of 2018 before the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. The said revision was dismissed at the admission stage on 13.07.2018 stating that granting of Rs.10,000/- per month to the daughter, in the present days, cannot be termed as exorbitant amount and the trial Court was directed to dispose of the HMOP as expeditiously as possible.
5. Suppressing the disposal of the revision, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge, Kurnool questioning the very same order and sought to condone the delay of 179 days in filing the appeal.
6. On notice, the respondent filed counter intimating that the order impugned therein was confirmed in CRP.No.3528 of 2018, as stated supra and the Appeal was filed suppressing the said fact. Thereupon, the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool, considering the suppression of fact by the Petitioner, dismissed the I.A.No.22 of 2019 and compensatory costs at Rs.3,000/- were imposed under Section 35-A CPC on the Petitioner. Further, the Court directed the Administrative Officer to lodge a complaint against the Petitioner before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class 4 for (Prohibition and Excise), Kurnool for the offence under Section 193 IPC. Hence, the present revision is filed.
7. Heard Sri O.Manohar Reddy, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and Sri K.Mahadeva, learned counsel for the respondent.
8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that the Appeal was filed by the Petitioner on incorrect legal advice and that the procedure contemplated under section 340 Cr.P.C. was not complied with by the trial Court. It was contended that for Section 340 Cr.P.C. to apply, there should be a finding of fact and a complaint in writing to be sent to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction and in this case, no such procedure was followed.
9. Learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that the procedure as prescribed under section 340 Cr.P.C., was not followed and there is apparent suppression of the fact and the Petitioner being a well-educated and well-versed in litigation cannot plead ignorance of the same.
10. After hearing the respective counsel, the reasoning of this court is as follows; In the affidavit filed by the Petitioner at paragraph 5, it was pleaded that all the documents including the order copy of the CRP.No.3528 of 2018 were given to the counsel and the counsel in the District Court had filed the Appeal without mentioning the same. The further plea of the Petitioner is that he has sufficient material to prove that he has submitted the copy of the 5 order in the revision along with other documents to the advocate in the Court below. The paragraph 5 of the affidavit of the Petitioner is extracted below:
"5. The Court below failed to see that the petitioner has no legal knowledge to understanding the legal terminology in the Order passed in CRP by this Hon'ble High Court, he approached his Counsel at court below along with all documents including order copy of CRP 3528 of 2018 dated 13th July 2018 and the petitioner is having the sufficient material to prove that he has given the above said order copy of the CRP to his council along with other documents. as per the advice of his Counsel at court below and following his instructions, filed CMA before the court below and he has no legal knowledge about mentioning of filing of above said CRP before this Hon'ble court against the order passed in IA.No.68 in H.M.O.P.No.35 of 2012 and the same was dismissed. In view of the Grounds and Affidavit are prepared by the council at court below in the above said CMA, following his instructions filed said CMA. In view of the said facts and circumstances shows that suppression of said fact is not intentional as such, the Court below ought not to have passed the order direct to the AO lodge complaint against the petitioner under Section 193 of I.P.C."
11. In the grounds of Revision also, similar plea as stated above was urged.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel And Others 1 held that before initiating action under Section 195 of IPC., it must be shown that the offending party had given false statement intentionally and Court 1 (2017) 1 SCC 113 6 has to form an opinion regarding expediency of such enquiry having regard to overall factual matrix as well as probable consequences of such prosecution. The paragraph 6 and 7 are extracted below:
"6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as "IPC"); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India [K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 178 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 572] ). The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.
7. In the process of formation of opinion by the court that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into, the requirement should only be to have a prima facie satisfaction of the offence which appears to have been committed. It is open to the court to hold a preliminary inquiry though it is not mandatory. In case, the court is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion, that it appears to the court that an offence as referred to under Section 340 CrPC has been committed, the court may dispense with the preliminary inquiry. Even after forming an opinion as to the offence which appears to have been committed also, it is not mandatory that a complaint should be filed as a matter of course. (See Pritish v. State of Maharashtra [Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253 :
2002 SCC (Cri) 140] .)"
13. In the present case, no such opinion was formed by the learned Principal District Judge before initiating action. Considering the dicta of 7 Hon'ble Supreme Court, the impugned order is set-aside and remanded to the learned Principal District Judge, Kurnool for re-consideration in terms of the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarsang Nathaji and the defence of the petitioner.
14. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 18.12.2024 KLP