Delhi District Court
Smt. Sarita Devi vs Sh. Yamuna Chaudhary on 30 January, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by: Ms. Mahima Rai Singh
Misc. SCJ No. 127/2022
CNR Number: DLWT-03-003335-2022
Smt. Sarita Devi
......non applicant/plaintiff
Versus
Sh. Yamuna Chaudhary
.....applicant/Defendant
ORDER ON APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 340 R/W
SECTION 195 Cr.P.C.
1. By way of this Order I shall dispose off the application
U/s 340 r/w Section 195 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant/defendant for
initiating proceedings against non-applicant/plaintiff.
The briefs facts of the application are as under:
2. That the non-applicant/plaintiff has filed the petition with
accompanying suit and affidavit for grant of possession damages/mesne
profits and for permanent injunction with other relief against the
respondent. It is further submitted that plaintiff filed the petition and
evidence affidavit. In her cross-examination plaintiff admitted that she has two sons who have their own house and that their sons have CS SCJ No. 127/2022 Sarita Devi Vs. Yamuna Chaudhary Page No. 1 of 5 purchased their own house. Also that, the house numbers of her two sons is F-140 and that it was wrong to suggest that she has transferred the suit property measuring 40 Sq. yards by way of GPA in favour of Suresh Kumar for sale consideration amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
3. It is further submitted that plaintiff has committed perjury by deliberately omitting the material facts, concealing the fact her cross-examination where is she has misstated her statement. It is further submitted that plaintiff during the cross-examination has deliberately and consciously furnished false information in her plaint, cross-examination and verification clause with the sole intentions to mislead the Court for undue, unjust, unwarranted gain and relief. It is further submitted that plaintiff has concealed the material facts from this Court which was in her actual and constructive knowledge and did not disclose the same. Defendant/applicant has prayed that contempt proceedings be initiated against the plaintiff and FIR be registered against the plaintiff.
4. In reply to the above said application the plaintiff/non- applicant is filed belatedly and is not maintainable as per law. The defendants/applicant has not approached the Court with clean hands and suppressed material facts and that a criminal complaint is already in process against the defendant regarding forcibly break upon the lock and entered into the property and made construction on the back of plaintiff and merged the property no. F-140 to F-139 wherein the old electricity connection and ration card of plaintiff is already made in property no. F- 140, hence the defendant is liable to be prosecution as per law.
5. It is further submitted that the plaintiff has not committed any offence punishable under section 340 Cr.P.C. or not made any wrong CS SCJ No. 127/2022 Sarita Devi Vs. Yamuna Chaudhary Page No. 2 of 5 statement wherein punishable as per law. The other averments made in the reply are not relevant for disposal of the present application.
6. The Court has carefully perused the record and submissions. Firstly, it is a settled law that power U/s 340 Cr.P.C must be exercised with great care and caution. The offences contemplated by this section are offences against public justice and the court must be sure that the process is not being utilized as a means of satisfying a private grudge, by a successful litigant (Santokh Singh vs Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190). It must also be satisfied that it is in the public interest that a criminal proceeding is to be instituted. The words "expedient in the interest of justice" mentioned in Section 340 Cr.P.C are very crucial. It was also held in the above mentioned judgment that it is not every incorrect or false statement that makes it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution. The court should remember that :
a) too frequent prosecution for such offences tend to defeat its very object ;
b) prosecution would be resorted to only in the larger interest of administration of justice and not to gratify the feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party;
c) where a complaint is lodged before the court complaining commission of offence referred to in Section-195 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C, the court is not bound to make the complaint.
7. The complaint would be made only if it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so. The expediency would be judged by the CS SCJ No. 127/2022 Sarita Devi Vs. Yamuna Chaudhary Page No. 3 of 5 court by weighing not by the magnitude of the injury suffered by the person effected by such offence but having regard to the effect or impact of that offence upon administration of justice. {Iqbal Singh Marwah v/s Meenakshi Marwah ( AIR 2005, SC 2119}. It was also held in the said judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court that it is possible that any 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 life, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in the court and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad principle of administration of justice may be minimal. It was further held that Section 195(1) (b)(ii) Cr.PC, would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in proceeding in any court i.e during the time when the document is in custodialegis.
8. In the present application the allegations leveled by the defendant/applicant does not pertain to any forged document having been filed during the trial and relates to statement of the plaintiff given during her cross-examination and for concealing material facts from Court. The plaintiff as per her own deposition is an uneducated lady and taking into account the present facts and circumstances of the present case and nature of controversy involved, no mens-rea can be attributed to her. The authenticity or veracity of the documents filed by the defendant/applicant alongwith the present application cannot be determined as only photocopies have been filed.
9. Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid case laws which CS SCJ No. 127/2022 Sarita Devi Vs. Yamuna Chaudhary Page No. 4 of 5 enunciates the primary legislative intent and philosophy behind Section 340 Cr.P.C, by virtue of the present application, the defendant/applicant has miserably failed to show that the administration of justice got hampered because of some false statements made by plaintiff, if any. Needless to say, the main suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed on merits. Further keeping in view the aforementioned discussion, the allegations leveled do not tantamount to be having an impact upon the administration of justice. Application being devoid of merits, hence stands dismissed.
Announced in open Court (Mahima Rai Singh)
on 30th Day of January 2023 SCJ cum RC(West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This order contains 5 pages.)
CS SCJ No. 127/2022 Sarita Devi Vs. Yamuna Chaudhary Page No. 5 of 5