Delhi District Court
Karuna Singh Solanki vs Smt. Veena Solanki on 2 September, 2014
IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJLI GOEL
PO: MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL 2
NEW DELHI
M15/14
IN THE MATTER OF:
Karuna Singh Solanki
D/o Shri Surinder Singh
R/o A7, 2nd Floor, Shivalik
Near Malviya Nagar
New Delhi - 110017. ..........Applicant/ Respondent No.6
Versus
Smt. Veena Solanki
W/o Late Shri S.P.S Solanki
R/o C7, IInd Floor
Usha Niketan
Safdarjung Development Area
New Delhi. ................ Accused
And in
MACT Suit No.192/11/03 (Suit No.17/14)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Veena Solanki and another ......Petitioners
Versus
Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 1 of 16
Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki
Gopi Chand and others .....Respondents
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant. It is stated that the applicant is the respondent No.6 in the MACT petition No.192/11/03 which petition was filed by the accused on 5.3.2003 in the court and is the petitioner No.1 in the MACT Petition No.MACT/194/2011 filed by her and two others in the court on 23.12.2002 for claim of compensation in respect of the death of the deceased Shri Sukendra Pal Singh Solanki. It is averred that the cross examination of the PW1 petitioner No.1 dated 02.05.2012 and 31.01.2013 by the counsel for the respondents No.6 to 8 clearly disclosed the fact that she deliberately concealed a material fact from her petition on affidavit dated 05.03.2003 as also from her examination in chief on affidavit in February 2007 that she had another daughter namely Isha Solanki but she deliberately did not implead her while she had no basis or reason whatsoever to allege or believe on the date of her petition dated 05.03.2003 that Isha Solanki was murdered or had otherwise died. It is averred that the exclusion of Isha Solanki from the legal representatives of the deceased was a dishonest act of active concealment of a material fact by the petitioners for grabbing her share, inspite of their declaration in their petition and affidavit that nothing was false and nothing material was concealed. Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 2 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki
2. It is further averred that the cross examination of the PW1/ petitioner No.1 read with the affidavit of the defendant / respondent No.5 dated 21.03.2012 further diclosed a material fact that she had deliberately made another false declaration on 7th page of her claim petition No.192/11 sworn on affidavit dated 05.03.2003 that no relief was required against the defendant No.5 i.e. the mother of the deceased, for their ulterior motive to grab her share. It is averred that the accused made other false declarations in as much as the verification to her affidavit in support of her petition filed on 5.3.2003 is dated 5.3.2002. It is averred that the accused has committed the said offences u/s 193 IPC and in relation to the judicial proceedings of the court.
3. It is stated that the accused Veena Solanki is in the habit of making false allegations in the judical proceedings and the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri Vinod Kumar vide order dated 10.07.2006 passed in Crl. Misc. No.67/06 had found her guilty of making false allegations but had let her off taking a lenient view under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is averred that despite being found guilty and let off on taking a lenient view by the court, Smt. Veena Solanki has continued with her habit of taking the judicial proceedings for granted, making irresponsible allegations and false declarations of facts on oath / solemn affirmation in evidence knowing the same to be false in the judicial proceedings including in the judicial proceedings of this Court and that it is in the Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 3 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki interests of justice and expedient that the court may suo moto inquire into the offences, record a finding, make a complaint thereof and send the same along with the accused in custody to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the commission of the said offences and it is prayed accordingly.
4. Reply was filed on behalf of Veena Solanki averring that the application is meritless and has been made at such a belated stage of the proceeding only to delay the matter and to cause prejudice to the interest of the petitioner. It is averred that the elder daugther of the petitioner No.1, Ms. Esha Solanki has been missing since the year 1997 and at the time of filing of the present claim petition the petitioner No.1 had a genuine and bonafide belief that her elder daughter Ms. Esha Solanki had been murdered. It is averred that in this regard complaints as well as petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also been made by the petitioner No.1. It is averred that Esha Solanki till date has not been found and is believed to be dead. It is averred that the applicant Karuna Solanki in her claim petition No.664 of 2002 had herself not made Ms. Esha Solanki as party to the claim petition whereas she had made the petitioner No.1 Smt. Veena Solanki and the petitioner No.2 Ms. Eti Solanki as party to her claim petition. It is stated that the petitioner No.1, Smt. Veena Solanki, in para 19 of the reply to the claim petition No.664 of 2002 of the applicant Karuna Singh had clearly stated that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased person and out of the said wedlock she had two Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 4 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki daughters and the elder daughter i.e. Ms. Esha Solanki had been murdered by unknown person and her body had not been recovered. It is averred that as such it was false to allege that any material fact had been concealed by the petitioner No.1.
5. It is further averred that the petitioner in her claim petition No.130 of 2003 had made the mother of the deceased as pro forma defendant and she was defendant No.5 in the claim petition of the petitioner. It is averred that the defendant No.5 is since deceased. It is averred that the applicant Karuna Singh in para 4 of her application has failed to specify as to what other false declarations have been made by the petitioner in her petition dated 5.3.2003. It is averred that it is the applicant Karuna Singh against whom contempt proceedings should be initiated for making false declaration on oath in her evidence by way of affidavit dated 12.4.2013 so as to mislead the court and create false evidence in her favour. It is averred that the applicant Karuna Singh has falsely stated on oath in her evidence by way of affidavit dated 12.4.2013 that the deceased person divorced petitioner No.1 whereas she had got no documentary evidence. It is averred that the applicant Karuna Singh has falsely stated on oath in her evidence by way of affidavit dated 12.4.2013 that the deceased person had married her on the day of chhoti diwali 1994 however she had got no evidence documentary or otherwise to prove solemnization of her marriage at any time with the deceased person. It is stated that it is in fact the applicant Karuna Singh who has committed the offence of perjury and is Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 5 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki liable to be prosecuted under Section 193 IPC in and in relation to the judicial proceedings of this court. It is prayed that this court may inquire into the offence of perjury committed by Karuna Singh and take action to prosecute her under section 193 IPC.
6. Arguments were advanced on the issues raised in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents No.6 to 8.
7. Vide separate award the MACT petition has been disposed of. It may be mentioned that the main contentions raised in the present application were also raised in the written submissions filed on behalf of the respondents No.6 to 8 and have been duly dealt with in the award. Regarding the contention that the petitioner No.1 had deliberately concealed a material fact from her petition on affidavit dated 05.03.2003 as also from her examination in chief on affidavit in February 2007 that she had another daughter namely Isha Solanki but she deliberately did not implead her while she had no basis or reason whatsoever to allege or believe on the date of her petition dated 05.03.2003 that Isha Solanki was murdered or had otherwise died, it was observed in the award as under:
"52. PW1 was extensively crossexamined in that regard. During crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.6 to 8 PW1 stated that Isha Solanki was her daughter. She stated that she had not mentioned about her daughter Isha Solanki in Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 6 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki the claim petition as she had been murdered. She stated that she did not know when she was murdered. She stated that she did not have the death certificate of her daughter Isha Solanki or any other documentary proof of her death. She stated that she did not mention about the death of Isha Solanki as complaint of missing of her daughter was lodged with CBI but she did not remember the date. She stated that she had come to know about the death of her daughter Isha Solanki prior to 05.03.2003. She stated that she learnt about the death of Isha Solanki from PS Hauz Khas. She could not say whether she had lodged a complaint of murder or missing of her daughter only in September 2004. She admitted that she had mentioned in her complaint that she had learnt about the murder of her daughter from one Ranjit Singh and Amrish Singh in the year 2004 for the first time volunteered Karuna was doing the work of making dentures and Amrish was working with her. She stated that Ranjit and Amrish were brothers. She did not know if the brother of Amrish Singh expired in the year 1998. She denied the suggestion that Isha Solanki had not been murdered and she had eloped with a man. She stated that Isha Solanki was dead at the time of cremation of the deceased. She admitted that the name of her other daughter Ms. Isha Solanki had not been mentioned in the petition volunteered she had expired in the year 1997. She admitted that she had filed Criminal Writ Petition No.253/03 titled as Smt. Veena Solanki v. State & Ors. before the Hon'ble High Court and certified copy of the same is Ex.PW1/R1 and in para 2(d) of the said petition she had mentioned regarding the murder of her daughter by the persons named therein and receipt of telephone call in respect of the same in May 2004 from one Ranjeet. She stated Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 7 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki that at the time of filing of the petition in the year 2003, people had told her that her daughter Isha had been murdered. She did not remember whether in the petition Ex.PW1/R1 she had mentioned about people telling her regarding the murder of her daughter in the year 2003. She denied the suggestion that in the petition Ex.PW1/R1 she had mentioned that she came to know for the first time in May, 2004 regarding the murder of her daughter Ms. Isha.
53. PW1 thus stated that Isha Solanki was her daughter. It is pertinent that PW1 stated that she had not mentioned about her daughter Isha Solanki in the claim petition as she had been murdered though she did not know when she was murdered. She did not have the death certificate of her daughter Isha Solanki or any other documentary proof of her death. She stated that she did not mention about the death of Isha Solanki as complaint of missing of her daughter was lodged with CBI but she did not remember the date. She was crossexamined on when she came to know about the death of Isha and as per the Criminal Writ Petition filed by her she came to know about the murder of her daughter in 2004 i.e. after the filing of the present petition. However it is also stated that Isha had gone missing in 1997. In these circumstances the contention that the petitioner No.1 had not mentioned about her other daughter in order to grab her share is misplaced. Moreover it is significant that R6W1 had deposed in para 18 of her affidavit that she had filed her MACT Suit/ Petition on 20.11.2002 impleading inter alia, Veena Solanki and Eti Solanki and Smt. Prem Wati and as such according to R6W1 she had also not joined Isha as a party to the petition."Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 8 of 16
Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki Thus the contention that the petitioner No.1 had deliberately concealed about having another daughter in order to grab her share has already been negatived in the award. Further in was stated in the reply by the petitioner No.1 (Veena Solanki) to the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. that the elder daugther of the petitioner No.1, Ms. Esha Solanki had been missing since the year 1997 and in this regard complaints as well as petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had also been made by the petitioner No.1. It was also stated that Esha Solanki till date has not been found and is believed to be dead. It was stated that the petitioner No.1, Smt. Veena Solanki, in para 19 of the reply to the claim petition No.664 of 2002 of the applicant Karuna Singh had clearly stated that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased person and out of the said wedlock she had two daughters and the elder daughter i.e. Ms. Esha Solanki had been murdered by unknown person and her body had not been recovered. Thus it cannot be said that the petitioner No.1 Veena Solanki had deliberately concealed the said material fact from her petition.
8. It is further contended in the application that the petitioner No.1 had deliberately made another false declaration on 7th page of her claim petition No.192/11 sworn on affidavit dated 05.03.2003 that no relief was required against the defendant No.5 i.e. the mother of the deceased, for their ulterior motive to grab her share. In this regard it has been observed in the award: Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 9 of 16
Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki "54.It was then argued on behalf of the respondents No.6 to 8 that the petitioner No.1 also wanted to grab the share of her mother in law Smt. Prem Wati. It was argued that the crossexamination of the PW1/ petitioner No.1 read with the affidavit of the defendant / respondent No.5 dated 21.03.2012 disclosed a material fact that she had deliberately made another false declaration on 7th page of her claim petition No.192/11 sworn on affidavit dated 05.03.2003 that no relief was required against the defendant No.5 i.e. the mother of the deceased, for their ulterior motive to grab her share. It was argued that the cross examination of PW1 disclosed various other false declarations of facts made by her on oath.
It was argued that all such deliberate concealments and false declarations of material facts by the PW1/ petitioners not only render their claim petition liable to be rejected but also render them liable to be prosecuted for the commission of offences of perjury interalia, u/s 193 IPC on a complaint of court under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It was argued that the cross examination of the petitioner No.1 / PW1 by the counsel for the respondents No.6 to 8 had also completely shaken her credit and veracity of her claim and impeached the credibility of her testimony and thereby, had demolished her case, based on such testimony alone. PW1 was extensively cross examined in this regard and during crossexamination by the learned counsel for the respondents No.6 to 8 PW1 stated that her motherinlaw was residing in the village. She did not know whether her motherinlaw had ever resided with Karuna Singh. She stated that she did not file the claim petition after consultation with her motherinlaw. She admitted that she had mentioned in the petition that no relief was claimed by Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 10 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki respondent No.5. She stated that her motherinlaw was residing with her till 1996, thereafter, she had been residing with her other sons or in the village. She denied the suggestion that she wanted to drag (ought to be grab) the compensation of her motherin law and Isha Solanki. She denied the suggestion that she had deliberately omitted the name of her daughter Isha Solanki from the claim petition and she had falsely stated that her motherinlaw does not need the claim so as to grab their share. She denied the suggestion that the portion of her claim petition that 'no relief is required against defendant No.5 i.e. mother of the deceased being the necessary proforma respondent' was wrong.
55.PW1 thus stated that her motherinlaw was residing in the village and she did not file the claim petition after consultation with her motherinlaw. She admitted that she had mentioned in the petition that no relief was claimed by respondent No.5 though she denied the suggestion that she had falsely stated that her motherinlaw does not need the claim so as to grab her share or that the portion of her claim petition that 'no relief is required against defendant No.5 i.e. mother of the deceased being the necessary proforma respondent' was wrong. However, it is seen that it was stated in the claim petition that 'no relief is required against defendant No.5, i.e. mother of the deceased being the necessary proforma respondent' which has to be construed as meaning that the petitioners were not claiming any relief against the respondent No.5 and it was nowhere stated in the claim petition that no relief was required by the respondent No.5. As per the requirements of the law all the dependents have to be joined as parties Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 11 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki whether as petitioners or as respondents and the petitioners had specifically made the respondent No.5 a respondent to the petition though no relief was claimed against her and what would be the entitlement of the respondent No.5 would be seen by the Tribunal. As such there is nothing to show that any attempt was made by the petitioner No.1 to grab the share of the respondent No.5.
Thus this contention of the respondent No.6 has also been negatived in the award. It was then contended that the accused made other false declarations in as much as the verification to her affidavit in support of her petition filed on 5.3.2003 is dated 5.3.2002. However that could be a typographical error and even the cause of action to file the MACT petition had not arisen on 5.3.2002 and it cannot be said that the same amounted to a false declaration.
9. It was stated in the application that the accused Veena Solanki is in the habit of making false allegations in the judical proceedings and the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri Vinod Kumar vide order dated 10.07.2006 passed in Crl. Misc. No.67/06 had found her guilty of making false allegations but had let her off taking a lenient view under Section 340 Cr.P.C. However this court need not go into the same. It has been stated in the application that despite being found guilty and let off on taking a lenient view by the court, Smt. Veena Solanki has continued with her habit of taking the judicial proceedings for granted, making Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 12 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki irresponsible allegations and false declarations of facts on oath / solemn affirmation in evidence knowing the same to be false in the judicial proceedings including in the judicial proceedings of this Court, however it is seen that the applicant has not substantiated what other false declarations have been made by the petitioner No.1 Veena Solanki in the petition or in her evidence or otherwise in the MACT petition. In this regard it has been observed in the award:
"57. It may be mentioned that it was argued on behalf of the respondents No.6 to 8 that Veena Solanki is in the habit of making false allegations in the judical proceedings and the court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Shri Vinod Kumar vide order dated 10.07.2006 passed in Crl. Misc. No.67/06 had found her guilty of making false allegations but had let her off taking a lenient view under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It was argued that despite being found guilty and let off on taking a lenient view by the court, Smt. Veena Solanki had continued with her habit of taking the judicial proceedings for granted, making irresponsible allegations and false declaration of facts on oath/ solemn affirmation in evidence knowing the same to be false in the judicial proceedings including in the judicial proceedings of this Court and that it was in the interests of justice and expedient that the court may suo moto inquire into the offences, record a finding, make a complaint thereof and send the same along with the accused in custody to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the commission of the said offences. However nothing has come on record which would require such action on the part of this Tribunal Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 13 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki and there is nothing to show that any false declarations had been made on oath. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramjas Foundation & Another v. Union of India and Others 2010 (1) SCALE 598 (para 14) where it was observed as under:
"The principle that a person who does not come to the court with clean hands is not entitled to be heard on merits of his grievance and, in any case, such person is not entitled to any relief is applicable not only to the petitions filed under Article 32, 226 and 136 of the Constitution but also to the cases instituted in other courts and judicial forum. The object underlying the principle is that every court is not only entitled but is duty bound to protect itself from unscrupulous litigants who do not have any respect for the truth and who try to pollute the stream of justice by resorting to falsehood or by making misstatement or by suppressing facts which have bearing on adjudication of the issue(s) arising in the case"
The law in this regard is well settled but there is nothing to show that the petitioners in the present petition have resorted to falsehood or made any misstatement."
Thus this contention has also been suitably dealt with in the award. It was stated in the application that it is in the interests of justice and expedient that the court may suo moto inquire into the offences, record a finding, make a complaint thereof and send the same along with the accused in Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 14 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki custody to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the commission of the said offences and it is prayed accordingly but nothing has come on record which would require this court to suo motu inquire into the offences and take further action.
10. It may be mentioned that on the other hand the petitioner No.1 Veena Solanki in her reply had averred that it is the applicant Karuna Singh against whom contempt proceedings should be initiated for making false declaration on oath in her evidence by way of affidavit dated 12.4.2013 so as to mislead the court and create false evidence in her favour and that she had falsely stated on oath in her evidence by way of affidavit dated 12.4.2013 that the deceased person divorced petitioner No.1 whereas she had got no documentary evidence and that the deceased person had married her on the day of chhoti diwali 1994 however she had got no evidence documentary or otherwise to prove solemnization of her marriage at any time with the deceased person. However these are the contentions of the applicant Karuna Singh and the same have also been dealt with in the award and again there is nothing to show that the applicant Karuna Singh had committed the offence of perjury and was liable to be prosecuted under Section 193 IPC in and in relation to the judicial proceedings of this court.
In view of the above discussion there is no merit in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed on behalf of the applicant Karuna Singh Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 15 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki Solanki and the same is dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open court on this 2nd day of September, 2014 (GEETANJLI GOEL) PO: MACT2, New Delhi.
Suit No. M-15/14 Page No. 16 of 16 Karuna Singh Solanki v Veena Solanki