Delhi District Court
Sh. Surat Ram @ Ram Surat vs Sh. Murat Ram @ Murat Ram on 31 August, 2021
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-01
SHAHDARA DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS: DELHI.
Presided by: SH. VINEET KUMAR
Misc DJ No. 71/19
Sh. Surat Ram @ Ram Surat
S/o Sh. Bechan Ram
R/o D-2/369, Nand Nagri,
Delhi.
..........Applicant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Sh. Murat Ram @ Murat Ram
S/o Sh. Bechan Ram
R/o D-2/438, Nand Nagri,
Delhi.
2. The Director/Concerned Officer
Delhi Nagar Nigam
Slum and JJ Department
Phase 3, East Area, Welcome
Seelampur, Delhi.
........ Respondents/Defendants
Date of Institution : 07.03.2019
Order reserved on : 31.08.2021
Order passed on : 31.08.2021
APPLICATION/COMPLAINT U/S 340 Cr.PC. AGAINST THE
DEFENDANT NO. 1 FOR GIVING FALSE
EVIDENCE/STATEMENT BEFORE THIS COURT
Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 1/10
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application/complaint u/s 340 Cr.PC filed by plaintiff/applicant against the respondents/defendants, however, it has been categorically mentioned in the title that the present application has been preferred only against defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1 for giving false evidence/statement before this court.
2. The brief facts leading to the present application are that the plaintiff/applicant has filed a suit for partition, possession, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction against the defendants. The defendant no. 1 is the real brother of plaintiff/applicant and defendant no. 2 is the concerned department which maintains the record of the suit property bearing no. D-2/438, Nand Nagri, Delhi. The written statement was filed on behalf of both the defendants separately. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed and after commencement of trial during the stage of defendant evidence, it was deposed by the defendant no. 1/respondent that he is illiterate person, upon which the present application has been filed.
3. By virtue of the present application, plaintiff/applicant has submitted that the defendant no. 1, in para no. 4 of his written statement as well as in para no. 10 of his evidence affidavit, has mentioned that "the defendant no. 1 is illiterate person". However, during the course of cross examination, he has stated that he is 9th class pass. The plaintiff/applicant has further submitted that in view of chapter XI of IPC, whoever gives false evidence/statement at any stage of a judicial proceedings, shall be punished accordingly. Hence, the present application has been filed to make enquiry in respect of offence committed by the defendant Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 2/10 no.1/respondent no.1 and to make a complaint and take action in accordance with provision of law.
4. Defendant no. 1/respondent no. 1 has filed reply to the said application thereby submitting that the plaintiff/applicant has suppressed the material facts from this court as defendant no.1/respondent no. 1 has not made any statement intentionally or knowingly which falls under the purview of S. 340 Cr. PC. It is further submitted that the present application is not maintainable as the defendant no 1/respondent no. 1 has not filed the documents on the basis of which the present application has been filed by the plaintiff/applicant. It is further submitted that as per well settled law, it is not in every case of falsehood that proceedings u/s 340 Cr.PC ought to be resorted to and the same should only be initiated in rare cases, where it is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice. However, it is submitted that in the present case, there is a minor contradiction in the statement of defendant no. 1/respondent, which does not warrant initiation of proceedings u/s 340 Cr. PC. It is accordingly prayed that the present application is liable to be dismissed with costs.
5. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 340 Cr. PC a/w S. 195 Cr. PC,
340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause
(b) of sub- section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 3/10 committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub- section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub- section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court. (4) In this section," Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.
Section 195 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
(1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 4/10
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub-
clause (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub- section (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub- section (1), the term" Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section.
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub- section (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies, to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court in situate: Provided that-
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed.
7. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, the point of determination before this court is, Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 5/10 "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present matter, it is expedient in the interests of justice to proceed with an inquiry u/s 340 Cr. PC against defendant no. 1/respondent no.1 for the alleged false statement as stated in the application?"
8. The gravamen of the applicant/plaintiff which has led to filing of the present application is that it has been alleged by the applicant that defendant no. 1 in para no. 4 of his written statement as well as in para no. 10 of his evidence affidavit has mentioned that "the defendant no. 1 is illiterate person", however, during the cross examination, he has stated that he is 9th class pass. Thus, it has been alleged on behalf of the applicant that defendant no. 1 has made a false statement before this court in the civil suit between the parties and therefore action should be initiated against respondent u/s 340 Cr. PC. It is worthwhile to mention that there are two pre-conditions for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr. PC -
(i) materials produced before the court must make out a prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of the CrPC and
(ii) it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence.
9. 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 for an offence referred under clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 195 Cr.PC., but it must be shown that the respondent no. 1 has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 6/10 false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry under Section 340(1) of the CrPC into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.
10. 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 Cr.PC 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, it is not mandatory that a complaint should be filed as a matter of course.
11. The plaintiff has not relied upon any authority of law in support of his contentions, however, respondent /defendant no. 1 has primarily relied upon the judgment of Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah, 2005 AIR SCW 1929 in support of his contention seeking dismissal of the present application.
Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 7/10
12. In Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah, the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone into the scope of Section 340 Cr.PC. Paragraph-23 deals with the relevant consideration:
"23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC 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 interests 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(1)(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. ..."
13. The formation of an opinion by the court (before which proceedings were held) that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence is a sine qua non u/s 340 Cr.PC. However, it is a settled law that courts should not make a complaint in every offence Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 8/10 related to proceedings in that court as provided u/s 195 (1)(b) Cr.PC, but only when interest of justice requires. Applying the ratio in Iqbal Singh Marwah (Supra), it is clear that expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected due to the alleged offence provided u/s 195 (1)(b) Cr.PC, but by the impact such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. Also, it was held in Amarsang Nathaji vs Hardik Harshadbhai Patel & Ors 2016 SCC OnLine SC 1316 that merely making a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding in itself is not sufficient to justify prosecution for perjury, but it must be established that such an act was committed intentionally.
14. In the present matter, a civil suit for partition, possession, declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction was filed by the applicant/plaintiff against defendants no. 1 and 2. It has been contended by the applicant/plaintiff that during the course of cross examination in the said suit, defendant no.1 has made a contradictory/false statement vis-à-vis a statement he has deposed in the evidence affidavit. Therefore, the present application has been preferred.
15. It is worthwhile to mention that vide an order/judgment of even date, the main suit of the applicant/plaintiff has been dismissed by this court. Further, even if the statement given by defendant no.1 during the course of cross examination is held to be contradictory on the face of it vis-a-vis the statement given by him by way of evidence affidavit, then too, upon perusal of record as well as the entire factual matrix, it is apparent that the said statement had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the adjudication of any of the issues framed in the civil suit between the parties. It is thus clear Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 9/10 that the said statement is neither of any relevance/consequence for a decision on the dispute/controversy between the parties in the main suit nor it has been shown to have any impact on administration of justice in this matter by any stretch of imagination. Also, there is nothing on record to suggest that the contradictory statement was made intentionally by the respondent no. 1 so as to justify an inquiry u/s 340 Cr.PC.
16. In these circumstances, considering the discussion above as well as in the light of settled law, this court is of the opinion that neither it is expedient in the interest of justice nor any fruitful purpose shall be served by proceeding u/s 340 Cr.PC for an inquiry as to the offence alleged in the present application. Accordingly, the present application u/s 340 Cr.PC is dismissed with no order as to costs.
File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed VINEET by VINEET
KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2021.08.31
16:47:29 +0530
Announced in the (VINEET KUMAR)
open court Additional District Judge-01:
on 31.08.2021 Shahdara District:
Karkardooma, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 10 pages.)
Misc DJ no. 71/19 Surat Ram Vs. Murat Ram Page no. 10/10