Delhi District Court
State vs Santosh ("Convicted") Page 1 Of 14 on 30 October, 2014
FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 IN THE COURT OF SH. POORAN CHAND: CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE: CENTRAL DISTRICT: TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI FIR No.: 31/03 PS: Subzi Mandi U/s : 199/200 IPC Unique ID No.: 02401R0320512003 J U D G M E N T:
______________________________________________________________
(a) S. No. of the case : 46/2
(b) Name of complainant : Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the then Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(c) Date of commission of offence : 20.12.2000
(d) Name of the accused : Smt. Santosh
W/o Sh. Ram Chander,
R/o H. No. 76, Village Pitampura,
Delhi.
(e) Offence complained of : U/s :199/200 IPC
(f) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(g) Final arguments heard on : 30.10.2014
(h) Final Order : Convicted
(i) Date of such order : 30.10.2014
A. BRIEF FACTS & REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION:
State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 1 of 14
FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014
1. The facts of the case as borne out from the record are that on 20.12.2000 in the Court of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the then Civil Judge, accused made a false statement in the Suit No. 365/2000 for permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No. 8704, Gali No. 14B, Sidhi Pura, Model Basti, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and in an application U/o 39 Rule 2(a) CPC registered as M32/2000 supported by an affidavit dated 31.05.2001 in which accused had alleged that accused had been dispossessed illegally from the said property whereas in the application dated 03.10.2002 for withdrawal of the case, being plaintiff in Suit No. 365/2000 and applicant in M32/01 accused had stated therein that accused had voluntarily vacated the premises in dispute after receiving the consideration for the respondent, which was supported by affidavit dated 03.10.2002. Thus accused Santosh was charged for giving false statement/evidence in petition U/o 39 Rule 2 (a) and in the affidavit supported thereof.
2. After filing of the charge sheet in the case, accused was supplied the documents in compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C and after hearing arguments on charge vide order dated 12.04.2004, charge U/s 199/200 IPC was framed against the accused, to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3. In order to bring home the guilt of accused, prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses, whereafter the PE in the matter was closed and statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he pleaded State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 2 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 innocence and claimed that she has been falsely implicated in this case. However, she does not led evidence in her defense.
Evidence Held:
4. A total of eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution in support of its case. A brief scrutiny of the evidence recorded in the matter is as under.
5. PW1 Smt. Pushpa Devi has deposed that she and her brother Anil Yadav had purchased the house No. 8704, in gali No. 14/B, Siddapura, Model Basti from one Shyam Sunder. Santosh was residing in the said house as tenant. Since they had purchased the said house they demanded rent from Santosh. She started quarreling with them and files a civil suit against them. They arrived at a compromise with Santosh on 25.05.2001 after taking Rs. 3,00,000/ and she vacated the premises. She had come in the Court. She had stated in the Court that she was dispossessed by them forcibly by them even after taking Rs. 3,00,000/. Her statement was recorded in the Court. Her advocate was there at that time. Again when she came in the Court the Hon'ble Judge has booked her in the case as she has given false statement in the Court. Her statement was recorded.
6. PW2 Sh. Anil Yadav deposed that he and his sister Pushpa Devi had purchased the House No. 8704, Gali No. 14B, Siddipura, Model Basti, Delhi from one Shyam Sunder. Kishan Kumar etc. were residing in the said house State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 3 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 before Sh. Shyam Sunder. In the said house Smt. Santosh was residing as tenant for many years. After showing the documents of the house they demanded the rent from Santosh. Instead of giving the rent, she had filed a civil suit in the Court against them by saying that they were getting the premises vacated forcibly from her. On 25.05.2001 a compromise had taken place between them and she was ready to vacate the premises after taking Rs. 3,00,000/. She has taken Rs. 3,00,000/ and vacated the said premises. She had given the possession letter and signed the same. The possession letter is Ex. PW2/A. The date was fixed as 01.06.2001 and she had to appear as a witness in that case. She had given a false statement in the Court regarding defamation and regarding dispossession of accused forcibly by them. She had stated in the Court that she was dispossessed by them forcibly. The agreement/mutual settlement between accused Santosh and themselves is Ex. PW2/B. His statement was recorded.
7. PW3 WASI Geeta Devi was the Duty Officer who recorded the FIR in the matter. She proved the copy of FIR as Ex.PW3/A.
8. PW4 Sh. Murli Manohar Yadav has deposed that he know Anil Yadav and Pushpa Yadav. They are residing in the locality since their birth. Accused was tenant of Pushpa Yadav and Anil Yadav at their property No. 8704, Gali Chaudhary Phool Singh Siddipura. Anil and Pushpa purchased this house from the earlier owner sometime in 1988 and she was a tenant in that house State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 4 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 before the purchase of the accused by Anil and Pushpa. When the house was purchased by Pushpa and Anil Yadav accused filed a civil suit in the court of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh praying that the landlord are forcibly trying to vacate the tenanted premises. Thereafter on 25.05.2001 the mutual agreement has been taken place between the parties that the accused will vacate the premises and in consideration of vacating the premises the landlord agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ and it was recorded in the agreement. He was a witness of the said agreement and he had also signed the said document. The agreement has been taken place in the presence of 20 to 25 persons and it was volunteer by the accused and there was no question of any force etc. on the part of the landlord while getting the document executed. Police also enquired from him and they have recorded his statement. The agreement dated 25.05.2001 is Ex. PW2/B and the possession letter is Ex. PW2/A.
9. PW5 Sh. Ved Prakash Mongia deposed that in the year 2003, he was posted with Sh. R K Singh, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi. On 03.01.2003, Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh made complaint against accused Santosh u/s 195 Cr.PC r/w Section 340 Cr.PC for making false statement in the Court. He forwarded the same to the Court of Ld. CMM, Delhi.
10. PW6 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh is the complainant who has deposed that from 16.08.2000 to 24.08.2003, he was presiding over the Court of Civil Judge/Delhi at Tis Hazari Courts. The suit titled Smt. Santosh Vs. Anil Yadav State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 5 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 & Anr. was assigned to his Court and it was registered as Suit No. 365/2000 on 20.12.2000. Exparte injunction was granted in favour of plaintiff Smt. Santosh and the same was extended from time to time. Smt. Santosh moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2 (A) CPC alleging that despite the injunction order, she had been dispossessed illegally from the suit property. The application was supported by her affidavit. Parties were asked to lead their evidence on the application. During her examination on oath in the Court, Smt. Santosh reiterated her allegation that she had been dispossessed illegally from the suit property. During the pendency of the matter on 03.10.2002 she moved an application for withdrawal of the case and the contempt petition. This application was also supported by her affidavit. In the application for withdrawal she stated that she had voluntarily vacated the suit premises. On being asked whether her affidavit towards the contempt petition which was registered as M32/01 and her statement on oath in support of the petition was correct, she stated that her subsequent affidavit was correct. After carefully considering the facts of the case and going through the record, he came to the conclusion that Smt. Santosh intentionally deposed falsely before the Court on oath and also furnished false affidavit. He considered it a fit case for making complaint to the Ld. CMM/Delhi for appropriate action and consequently he made the complaint to Ld. CMM/Delhi on 03.01.2003, the original of which is Ex. PW6/A. The detail facts of the case and the complaint are mentioned in his complaint Ex. PW6/A and the record of Suit No. 365/2000 as well as the petition No. M32/01 may also kindly be looked State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 6 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 into and read with his complaint.
11. PW7 SI Sushil Kumar has deposed that on 30.01.2003 after registration, this case was marked to him for further investigation. He recorded the statement of witnesses and obtained certified copies of the relevant documents from the Court of Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi. During the course of investigation, he arrested the accused Santosh on 13.03.2003 vide Ex. PW7/A. After investigation, challan was filed in the Court through SHO Police Station Subzi Mandi.
12. PW8 Sh. Hira Ballah Pujari, LDC, Record Room (Civil), Tis Hazari Courts has deposed that he proved the original record of case suit No. 365/00, titled as Santosh V. Anil Yadav. The certified copies of the statement of accused Smt. Santosh has been marked as mark A (running into 6 pages), certified copy of affidavit dated 03.10.2002 which was filed by the accused, agreement/mutual settlement which is marked PW2/D (running into 4 pages including the possession letter) which are available on record are compared with the original record and same are found to be true record. The statement of accused Santosh which has already been marked as mark A is Ex. PW8/A and certified copy of affidavit dated 03.10.2002 is marked as Ex. PW8/B. The photocopies of application u/o 39 rule 1 & 2 r/w Section 151 CPC which was moved by the accused Santosh in the civil suit, application u/s 151 CPC for sealing the documents which were in possession of defendant in the above State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 7 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 mentioned suit alongwith the respective affidavits and of compromise and application for withdrawal of case dated 03.10.2002 are got conducted from the original record and same are marked as Ex. PW8/C, Ex. PW8/D (including the respective affidavits) and Ex. PW8/E.
13. This is all as far as prosecution evidence in the matter is concerned.
Arguments advanced and case law relied upon :
14. I have heard arguments advanced by both the sides and have also perused the evidences led by both the parties.
15. On behalf of State it is argued that in view of the testimonies of PWs prosecution has able to prove the charge punishable u/s 199/200 IPC against the accused Smt. Santosh beyond reasonable doubt. It is also argued that accused be convicted and sentenced as per law.
16. Per contra, it is argued on behalf of accused that prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the accused. It is also argued that in the complaint Ld. Trial Judge has not give the findings regarding conducting the inquiry to come to the conclusion 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. It is also argued that accused has denied the State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 8 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 suggestion of Rs. Six lacs paid by the other party to the accused as consideration. It also argued that there are some material contradictions in the testimonies of PWs specially the complainant. Hence, accused is entitled to be acquitted in the present case.
17. In order to prove the charge, prosecution examined as much as eight witnesses, out of which PW1 Smt. Pushpa Devi, PW2 Sh. Anil Yadav, PW4 Murli Manohar Yadav and PW6 Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Central are the material witnesses to prove the charge. The PW1 Smt. Pushpa Devi has categorically stated that they compromised with the accused on 25.05.2001 after paying Rs. 3,00,000/ and the premises was vacated. She has also stated that she and her brother Sh. Anil Yadav, PW2 have purchased the H. No. 8704, in Gali No. 14/B, Sidhipura, Model Basti from one Shyam Sunder and Santosh was residing as a tenant in the said house. The possession letter is Ex. PW2/A in the testimony of PW2 Sh. Anil Yadav and the compromise/mutual settlement is proved as Ex. PW2/B bearing the signatures of both the parties. PW4 Sh. Murli Manohar Yadav has also corroborated the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 stating that on 25.05.2001 a mutual agreement was taken place between the parties in his presence and accused vacated the premises against consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/. During cross examination this witness has also stated that as the compromise was written in English, the vernacular translation was also explained to the accused. PW6 is the complainant who has filed the complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC r/w Section 340 State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 9 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 Cr.PC. PW6 has categorically stated that vide order dated 22.12.2000 an Ex. Parte stay order was granted in favour of the plaintiff, present accused and notice of the suit was issued to the opposite party and thereafter an application U/s 39 Rule 2(A) CPC alleging that in contravention of the interim order passed by this Court on 22.12.2000 the plaintiff, present accused had been dispossessed by defendant and their associates by use of force on 25.05.2001. The contempt application was registered separately as M32/01. The evidence of the accused was recorded in the said suit and she was cross examined by defence counsel. On 21.12.2001 and during cross examination accused has denied having entered into any compromise and also having received Rs. 3,00,000/ for vacating the premises. On 06.02.2001 Sh. S P Yadav, Advocate appeared on behalf of defendant and filed his Vakalatnama and the matter was adjourned for 08.03.2001 for WS and reply. The WS and reply was filed on 20.04.2001. On 30.05.2001 Ld. counsel for the defendant appeared with defendant No. 1 in pre lunch session and submitted to the Court that after the compromise the plaintiff has vacated the premises in dispute. None appeared on behalf of plaintiff, hence the matter was adjourned for 01.06.2001 for appearance of the parties. On 01.06.2001 plaintiff moved an application U/s 39 Rule 2(A) CPC alleging that in contravention of the interim order passed by this Court, plaintiff has been dispossessed. On 03.10.2002 a withdrawal application was moved by accused in the said suit. On the said date one Sh. K C Java was present with the accused and filed his Vakalatnama in place of his earlier counsel. The counsel for other party was State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 10 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 also present. In the application accused/plaintiff has categorically stated that she has voluntarily vacated the premises in dispute after receiving the consideration from the respondent. The said application was duty supported by the affidavit of the accused dated 03.10.2002. From the record it is clear that in fact the premises was vacated on 25.05.2001 after receiving the consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/ from the other party by the accused but accused has not approached the concerned Court with the clean hands and concealed the facts. The compromise agreement and the possession letter were put to the accused during cross examination which were duly admitted by her. In the contempt application accused was further cross examined on 03.05.2002 wherein she has categorically denied the suggestion that she has arrived at compromise with the defendant against the consideration and also denied to have signed any compromise paper or possession letter on 25.05.2001.
18. There is also one material fact in this case that prior to filing of the compromise application accused was represented by his earlier counsel Sh. Mohar Singh but on the date of the withdrawal of the suit some other counsel namely Sh. K C Java was appeared and suit was dismissed as withdrawn as compromised. The arguments of Ld. counsel of accused Sh. Mohar Singh who is represented the accused in this case that Ld. Civil Judge did not inquired about the Vakalatnama or presence of the earlier counsel on the day of withdrawal of the suit, is baseless. In my considered view, it was duty of State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 11 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 the counsel to appear in the Court, even if due to some reasons he could not appeared then he should have inquired from the Court in the post lunch session regarding the proceedings of the case but there is noting on record to this effect. From the record it is also clear that present counsel Sh. Mohar Singh was also represented the accused in the civil suit. But he did not appeared on the relevant date. No plausible explanation in this regard have come on record.
19. So far as other argument addressed on behalf of accused that complainant Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, the then Ld. Civil Judge did not form the 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 subsection (1) of Section 195 is also not tenable. As for the Court complaint there is no such requirement because Court has formed its opinion in detail in complaint u/s 195 Cr.PC. Moreover pursuant to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "M.S. Shriff and anr. V. State of Madras and ors.," AIR 1954 SC 397 and "Pritish V. State of Maharashtra", AIR 2002 SC 236. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has amended the Rule 3 in partA of Chapter 8 of the High Court Rules and Orders, Volumne 3 which is mentioned as under for reference:
"3. Expediency and interests of justice--the main consideration--The main point which the Court has to consider in initiating proceedings under State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 12 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 Section 340 of the Code is whether it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made and a complaint filed. The mere fact that there is reason to believe that an offence has been committed is by itself not sufficient to justify a prosecution. The objective is to prevent abuse of process of Court by use of perjury. The Court is empowered to hold a preliminary inquiry but it is not peremptory. Even without a preliminary inquiry the Court can form an opinion when it appears that an offence has been committed in relation to a proceeding in that Court. Sub section (1) of Section 340 does not contemplate that the Court should give a finding whether any particular person is guilty or not. In fact no expression on the guilt or innocence of person should be made by the Court while passing the order under Section 340 of the Code. The purpose of inquiry, even if the Court ought to conduct it, is only to decide whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed. It is not mandatory that person concerned should be State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 13 of 14 FIR No. 31/03: U/s 199/200 IPC: PS : Subzi Mandi DOD: 30.10.2014 called upon to give any explanation before ordering his prosecution.
20. Therefore in view of my above reasons, I am of the considered view that accused Santosh has deliberately filed the false evidence in the judicial proceedings with the intention to seek favourable order. Hence, accused Santosh is convicted for the offence punishable u/s 199/200 IPC. To be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court (Pooran Chand)
on 30.10.2014 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate:
Central District:Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
State V/s Santosh ("Convicted") Page 14 of 14