Delhi District Court
Vide This Order I Shall Dispose Of The ... vs R. P. Meena Page 1 Of 7 on 24 September, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR MEENA
CIVIL JUDGE13 (CENTRAL), THC, NEW DELHI
M90/14
Street No.3, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj
vs
R. P. Meena
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 340 Cr.P.C
1 Vide this order I shall dispose of the application under
section 340 of Cr. PC which is filed by the plaintiff/applicant
against one Sh. R.P. Meena, Executive Engineer (building)
Central Zone.
Grounds of Application
2 Through the present application under section 340 of Cr.
P.C it is averred by the plaintiff/applicant that the defendant No.
3 has filed written statement and the same accompanied with
an affidavit of the respondent Sh. R. P. Meena, Executive
Engineer (building) Central Zone. It is contended by the plaintiff that the respondent Sh. R. P. Meena has no authority or any power of attorney of defendant No. 3 to file the written statement on behalf of defendant No. 3. It is further averred by the plaintiff/ applicant that the respondent has wrongly stated in the written statement at para 3 under the heading 'Preliminary Objections' that " Even otherwise , the MCD has carried out the inspection of the property in question by the area officials and it M90/14 Street No. 3, Ansari Road , Darya Ganj vs R. P. Meena Page 1 of 7 was found that no ongoing construction has been carried out in the suit property which is old and occupied. The said property is constructed as per the sanction plan comprising basement, stil, ground floor to third floor.".
3 It is further, averred by the plaintiff/applicant that suit property is neither old nor occupied and the respondent has deliberately and intentionally stated wrong facts. It is also stated by the plaintiff/ applicant in the application that the photographs taken by the Local Commissioner do suggest that large quantity of building materials is lying in the suit property and accordingly the construction is going on in the suit property. It is also stated by the plaintiff that the respondent has wrongly stated the facts that the construction is being carried on as per the sanctioned plan, however, the construction is being carried on without any sanctioned plan.
4 Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent and no reply has been filed by or on behalf of the respondent with respect to the present application under section 340 of Cr.PC.
Finding by the Court 5 After hearing the submission on behalf of the plaintiff and before proceedings with the present application the court deem it fit to discuss here the provisions as enumerated under section 340 Cr.P.C.
M90/14 Street No. 3, Ansari Road , Darya Ganj vs R. P. Meena Page 2 of 7Section 340 Cr. P. C reads as under:
"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 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;M90/14 Street No. 3, Ansari Road , Darya Ganj vs R. P. Meena Page 3 of 7
(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.
6 So after going through the provisions as enumerated under section 340 of Cr. PC. It is clear that proceedings under section 340 of Cr.PC can be invoked if the offence as mentioned under section 195 (1) clause b of Cr. PC appears to have been committed. Section 195 (1) (b)(i) of Cr. PC provides the offences as enumerated under section 193 to 196, 199,200,205,211 and 228 of IPC. The section 193 to section 211 of IPC comes under chapter XI under the headings of the false evidence and offences against public justice. However, in the present matter, even the issues have not been framed and the suit was dismissed under Order 7 Rule of 11 CPC. So it is very much clear that the offence as enumerated under section 195 (1) (b)(i) have not been committed. As far as the offences as mentioned under section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of Cr. PC are concerned, same pertains to commission of the offence, with respect to the documents produced or given in evidence. However, in the present application, there is admittedly nothing to substantiate that any document had been produced or given in evidence. In other words, the present matter in hand does not pertains to forgery with respect to any documents accordingly even the offence as enumerated under section 195 (1)(b)(ii) have not been committed. As far as the offence as mentioned under section 195(1)(b)(iii) are concerned, same M90/14 Street No. 3, Ansari Road , Darya Ganj vs R. P. Meena Page 4 of 7 pertains to criminal conspiracy, with respect to the offence as mentioned under section 195 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of Cr. PC, however, there is no evidence or arverments w.r.t the commission of Criminal conspiracy of any of the offences as mentioned under Section 195 (1)(b)(i) & (ii) of Cr. PC.
7 In view of the above mentioned the Court left with no doubt that the present application under section 340 of Cr. PC is not maintainable on the face of it. Though from the above mentioned discussion, it is clear that present application under section 340 of Cr. P.C is not at all maintainable, yet in the interest of justice the Court is also deciding the application on merits on the basis of facts as mentioned in the application.
8 As far as the first contention of the plaintiff to the effect that respondent namely Sh. R. P. Meena has no authority or any power of attorney on behalf of the defendant No. 3 to file the written statement, is concerned, the Court observed that defendant No. 3 is the South Delhi Municipal Corporation and the respondent is the Executive Engineer in South Delhi Municipal Corporation. It is also pertinent to mention here that the respondent has not filed the written statement in his personal capacity but has filed the same in his official capacity. It is pertinent to mention here that Sh. R.P.Meena has filed the written statement being the Executive Engineer (building), Central Zone, SDMC, Delhi. In his affidavit also it had been mentioned by the respondent that he is giving the information M90/14 Street No. 3, Ansari Road , Darya Ganj vs R. P. Meena Page 5 of 7 as per the official records by SDMC. The Court found no reason to believe that the respondent was not having any authority. So, first plea of the plaintiff/applicant to the effect that respondent was having no authority does not hold water. Moreover, even if it is found true that the respondent was not having any authority then too the proceedings under section 340 of Cr.PC cannot be invoked/attracted for the reason as discussed above.
9 The second contention of the plaintiff/applicant is that the respondent had mentioned in his written statement that no ongoing construction was found in the suit property and the suit property is old and occupied property which has been constructed as per sanctioned plan. It is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff/applicant has also referred to the photographs which had been filed by the Local Commissioner. The Court has perused the photographs which have been filed by the Local Commissioner; perusal of the same it is revealed that some building material is lying in the suit property but no construction work is visible.
10 Even in the report by the Local Commission it has been mentioned that no construction work was going on in the suit property. As far as construction of the property as per sanctioned plan is concerned. It is stated by the plaintiff himself in the application in para 6 of the application that the plan was sanctioned by the defendant No. 3 subjected to NOC/licence from defendant No. 6 and 5. it is also stated by the M90/14 Street No. 3, Ansari Road , Darya Ganj vs R. P. Meena Page 6 of 7 plaintiff/applicant that licence was issued by dependent No. 5. Now, whether the sanctioned plan or the licence issued by the defendant No. 5 and 6 was or was not proper is the question of trial, whereas it is admitted fact in the present matter that the suit has been dismissed under order 7 Rule 11 of CPC.
Court observations 11 After going through the above mentioned the court is of the view that there are no ground for invoking the provisions Under section 340 Cr.P.C. It is clear that the present application under Section 340 Cr. P.C. has been moved without any basis.
Conclusion 12 In view of the above mentioned observation, the application u/s 340 Cr. P. C stands disposed of as dismissed.
13 File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court
on 24.09.2015 (Vinod Kumar Meena)
(Total pages 1 to 7) CJ13 (Central)/24.09.2015
M90/14 Street No. 3, Ansari Road , Darya Ganj vs R. P. Meena Page 7 of 7