Delhi District Court
M No. 106/1/16 vs P.K.Bharathan on 23 June, 2016
M NO. 106/1/16
P.S. Karol Bagh
U/s 340 Cr. PC
23.06.2016
Present: Proxy counsel for complainant in person.
Vide this order, this court shall decide upon the application U/s
340 Cr.PC filed by Anil Sehgal.
By way of present application U/s 340 Cr.PC, the applicant has
prayed for initiation of Criminal Proceedings against the respondent U/s
193/195/196/199/202/209/211 IPC.
It has been contended on behalf of the applicant that respondent has filed false complaint case against the applicant and also concealed material information in said complaint. It was argued that the respondent entered into an MoU dated 10.02.2012 with the applicant pertaining to property bearing no. 14A/9, WEA, Karol Bagh, New Delhi and vide said MoU both the parties became partners. It is submitted that respondents have concealed about the fact of execution of said MoU in his said complaint and therefore an inquiry U/s 340 Cr. PC be initiated against the respondent.
Before initiating any deliberation as to the applicability of Section 340CrPC, it is highly relevant that the impugned u/s 340 CrPC be reproduced herein, which reads as under:-
Section 340. Procedure in case 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 proceedings in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document may, after such preliminary M NO. 106/1/16 Anil Sehgal v. J. P. Singh Page no. 1 of 4 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 or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section
195.
In this regard, the Law is very much settled that the action has to be taken by the Court u/s 340 CrPC with respect to certain offences which appear to have been committed in-"respect of a document produced or given M NO. 106/1/16 Anil Sehgal v. J. P. Singh Page no. 2 of 4 in evidence in a proceeding in that Court", and that mere production of document which has not been proved as forged cannot be the basis for ordering prosecution u/s 340 CrPC. The said position of the Law has been clearly enunciated in the case titled as "P.K.Damodaran Vs. P.K.Bharathan, 2004 CrLJ 222". Moreover, the alleged act/offence should also have been done:- "in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court", as per the contemplation of the provision u/s 340 CrPC. Here, use of the words "appears to have been committed" connote that there should be prima facie material before the Court to indicate that the offence complained of are likely to have been committed as held in "R.P.Kapoor Vs. Pratap Singh, AIR 1966 ALL 66".
Finally, the most important ingredient to be kept in consideration before proceeding u/s 340 CrPC is that the Court must be of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made. Hon'ble Supreme Court has stressed on this aspect of the provision u/s 340 CrPC and has held in "Santokh Sing Vs. Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190" that "the Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of the relevant circumstances which determine the question of expediency and the Court has to order prosecution in the larger interests of the administration of justice and not to gratify feeling of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held in case titled as "Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenaxi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370" that the Court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and there is a reasonable foundation for the charge and also it is expedient in the interests of justice to launch prosecution u/s 340 CrPC. It has been furthermore directed by the Hon'ble Apex Court therein that it is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood (amounting to an offence u/s 193 and 195) where conviction is highly likely that the Court should direct prosecution u/s 340 CrPC.
M NO. 106/1/16 Anil Sehgal v. J. P. Singh Page no. 3 of 4 In the case in hand a complaint had been filed U/s 200 Cr. CP for taking cognizance U/s 190 Cr. PC and to summon the accused. An application U/s 156 (3) Cr.PC has been annexed with the complaint. At this nascent stage, this court does not find it expedient in the interest of justice to hold an inquiry contemplated U/s 340 Cr. PC with respect to any document which was in custodia legis. In these circumstances, application U/s 340 Cr. PC stands dismissed.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
(Shilpi Jain) MM-01(Central)/THC/Delhi 23.06.2016 M NO. 106/1/16 Anil Sehgal v. J. P. Singh Page no. 4 of 4