Delhi District Court
Smt. Rajni Sehrawat And Another vs Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat on 14 August, 2012
Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 1 of 14
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA M.M(MAHILA COURT)
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
CC No. 676/3/05
Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003
Smt. Rajni Sehrawat and another ........ Petitioners.
VERSUS
Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat ......... Respondent.
14.08.2012.
ORDER
1. Vide this order I shall dispose off an application moved on behalf of respondent u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
Brief facts of the case necessary for disposal of the application are as under.
2. A petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C was filed by Smt. Rajni Sehrawat seeking maintenance for herself as well as her minor child baby Muskan against her husband Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat. After the completion of pleadings in the said petition, the present application has been filed by the respondent (Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat) against the petitioner (Smt. Rajni Sehrawat). Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 2 of 14 Thus, the present application is an outcome of the pleadings of the parties in a petition for maintenance filed by the wife against her husband.
3. It has been alleged by the respondent that the nonapplicant (hereinafter referred to as "petitioner") has given various false and fabricated statements duly supported by an affidavit in her pleadings before this Court in order to succeed in getting maintenance for herself.
4. In her replication dated 17.2.2004 it has been categorically stated by the petitioner that Rs 2 lacs and Rs 1 lac were given to her by the brother of the respondent towards the purchase of Zen Car as well as towards Vidai amount. However, the said amount of Rs 3 lacs were taken back in cash by the respondent from the father of the petitioner in advance even before depositing the said amount of Rs 3 lacs in the account of petitioner just to create evidence in their favour. It is alleged in the present application that the petitioner was telling a lie as her father had himself testified before the Police Vigilance Enquiry ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against some police officers that he had also received Rs 2 lacs as price of the car.
5. In the interim order dated 24.2.2005 it was observed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court that the averments in this regard can only be decided after leading of evidence by both the parties. However, despite directions Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 3 of 14 petitioner has been deliberately delaying the filing of evidence as she scared of her lies being exposed.
6. In the instant application the respondent has also highlighted different stands taken by the petitioner and contradictory statements made by her before various Courts regarding the alleged return of Rs 3 lacs. It is alleged that while in the replication filed before this court, it has been alleged by her that the entire amount of Rs 3 lacs was taken back in cash by the respondent from the father of the petitioner. However, in her pleadings before the revisional court as well as evidence recorded before Ld. HMA Court, it has been alleged by her that the amount of Rs 2 lacs (being the sale amount of Zen Car) was withdrawn from her account immediately after the deposit of the same by pressurizing, harassing and threatening her. On the contrary, the stand of father of the petitioner in the police vigilance enquiry is that his daughter has already received Rs 2 lacs in lieu of the Zen Car.
7. These statements made by the petitioner before various forums are contradictory to each other. They are not supported by any documentary evidence as no such withdrawals are reflected in the bank account statement of the petitioner. Her bank account statement simply indicates deposit of Rs 1 lac in her account on 16.2.99 at the time of her marriage Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 4 of 14 (which was the Vidai amount) and deposit of Rs 2 lacs on 3.5.2001 ( which was the sale price of the car).
8. It is alleged that apparently from the pleadings of the petitioner before various forums and her evidence led before the Ld. HMA Court as well as her bank account statement it is amply clear that she is telling a lie for getting maintenance by adopting fraudulent means and filing false affidavits.
9. It has also been alleged that petitioner has been getting a salary of Rs 9,500/ pm by working as a Teacher in MCD since December 2007 which fact has not been disclosed by her with ulterior motive. Hence, the present application.
10.The reply was filed on behalf of the petitioner to the application under consideration. The application has been preliminarily objected to on the ground that the same has been filed merely to harass and humiliate the petitioner with a view to avoid paying maintenance to her. On merits, it is submitted that the respondent has picked the points from various pleadings and evidence but has not put the same before the Court in the same context as they were stated in the pleadings/evidence. It is alleged that the real facts are that the pass book and cheque book of the petitioner were lying with the father of the respondent along with certain blank Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 5 of 14 signed cheques as the petitioner used to visit Mumbai frequently to joint the company of her husband. The amount of Rs 2 lacs and one lac were withdrawn by her father in law in her absence. The respondent is simply trying to confuse the matter with the sole motive of denying the legal rights of the petitioner. The averments in the application regarding the statement given by the father of the petitioner in a vigilance enquiry have also been denied. It has also been averred that the petitioner is a human being and thus there might be some minor contradictions in the statements given by her before various Courts. However, she has never told lies before the Court intentionally or deliberately. She has also denied the fact that the bank statement of her account maintained with OBC Bank, Nangloi Branch does not reflect any entry of withdrawal of Rs 3 lacs. She has also denied having told any lie for getting maintenance by adopting fraudulent means and giving false affidavit.
11. She has admitted having joined the service of MCD as a contract teacher with effect from 14.12.2007. However, it is stated that the said job was not permanent and continuous. She was called by her employer whenever her services were required and thus she is not getting regular salary. With these contentions the application of the respondent have been controverted.
Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 6 of 14
12.Rejoinder was also filed by the respondent again highlighting the deferent stands taken by the petitioner in her various pleadings/evidence. The allegations made against the father of the respondent regarding withdrawal of the amount have been denied and it is stated that this is a fresh stand taken by the petitioner.
13. The respondent has also pointed towards certain other contradictions and false statements made by the petitioner in her evidence before Ld. HMA Court in the divorce proceeding. It is stated that the petitioner has categorically denied in her cross examination that she was having any account with OBC Bank, Nangloi. However, when confronted with her bank statements of OBC Bank, Nangloi she admitted having the said account. It is also submitted that even Ld. HMA Court had observed during the cross examination that the petitioner (herein) was changing her stands and she was warned to be careful in answering the questions.
14. As regards these additional contradictions pointed out by respondent in his rejoinder, the same are the contradictions which has come in evidence recorded before some other court and accordingly it would be appropriate that the said contradictions are appreciated by the concerned Court before which the evidence has been led. Accordingly, further details regarding the said contradictions are not dealt with in the present matter. Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 7 of 14
15.Arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties. Record has been carefully perused.
16.During the course of arguments it has been submitted by Ld. Counsel for the respondent that now evidence before this court is also complete and the complainant has miserably failed to show even a single entry for withdrawal of money from her account in support of her contentions that the amount of Rs 3 lacs was withdrawn by her father in law. Thus, it has been amply established on record that the petitioner has been resorting to lies with the sole purpose of extracting maintenance from the respondent. Thus, it is prayed that the petitioner should be punished for giving false evidence before the Court.
17.Per contra, it has been argued by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that contradictions, if any, which have come on record after the filing of the application cannot be considered by the Court while disposses of the present application. It is also argued that the contradictions being pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the respondent are minor and bona fide contradictions which are bound to occur when a party is litigating for a long period of 10 years. The petitioner has faced cross examination in 3 to 4 cases. She is a layman and not well aware about the nitygrities of law. It is a settled law that section 340 Cr.P.C is not attracted merely on Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 8 of 14 the basis of contradictions in evidence. For initiation of action u/s 340 Cr.P.C the Court must be satisfied that intentional and deliberate lies have been stated by a witness/party. The Court is also required to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence. Only thereafter, the Court should proceed u/s 340 Cr.P.C.
18. The respondent (applicant) has relied upon various decisions of Superior courts in support of his application. The judgments relied upon are as under:
(a) Jagdish Prasad Vs. State Crl. M.C. 1130/2008 & Crl. MA 4231/2008 Delhi High Court.
(b) Afzal Vs. State of Haryana & others AIR 1996 SC 2326.
(c) Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana and others (1995)3 SCC
757.
(d) K. Karunakaran Vs. T.V. Eachara Warrier 1078 AIR 290, 1078 SCR (2) 209.
(e) Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra & others (2002) SC 253 (para 16).
(f) Swaran Singh Vs. State of Punjab SC Crl. Appeal No. 721 of 1993 with Crl. Appeal No. 720 of 1993 D/ 26.04.2000 (para 37). Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 9 of 14
(g) Zahira H. Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat & others on 8 March 2006 SC Appeal Crl.) 446449 of 2004.
19.I have perused the citations relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for respondent. Perusal of all the judgments show that they are based on specific lies which have been stated before the concerned Court. They do not pertain to mere contradictions which have come in the cross examination of any particular witness. Also all the cases except the case of Jagdish Prasad (cited supra) are clearly distinguishable on facts as there was no relation of husband and wife between the litigating parties in any of the above mentioned cases.
20.Even the case of Jagdish Prasad (cited supra) is distinguishable on facts as in the said case the complainant where confronted with her job details and her bank account details, had specifically denied the same which were proved to be clear lies at a later stage. However, in the instant case the complainant has not denied about her job when asked in her cross examination. Rather she had herself admitted in her written arguments as well as oral arguments led before the Court that she was working as a Teacher with MCD since December 2007. Although the said fact has not mentioned by her in her affidavit filed before the Court. However, she had no where denied having doing the said job for which she can be Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 10 of 14 prosecuted for false evidence. Thus, clearly even the case of Jagdish Prasad (cited supra) is distinguishable on facts from the present case.
21.Per contra, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the following judgments :
(a) BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd. Vs. Shiv Lal 2009 (5) RCR Crl. P. 398 Delhi High Court.
(b)Abdul Gani Bhat Vs. Chairman, Islamia College Governing Board 2011(5) RCR Crl. P. 87 SC.
(c)R.S. Sujatha Vs. State of Karnataka and others 2011(1) RCR Crl. P. 365 SC.
22.By relying upon the above mentioned judgments Ld. Counsel for petitioner has stressed upon the point that an enquiry for contempt proceeding should be initiated by the Court only in exceptional circumstances where the Court is of the opinion that the perjury has been committed by a party deliberately with a view to have a beneficial order from the Court. There must be grounds of a nature higher than mere surmises or suspicion for initiating such proceedings. A false statement made before the Court either due to some carelessness or as an act of an error or bona fide mistake should be treated on different footing as compared to deliberate false statement made by the petitioner. Merely Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 11 of 14 because some of the statements in the pleadings were false as per the other party, no directions should be passed for initiating the proceeding of perjury.
23.The judgments relied upon by both the parties have been carefully perused.
24.It has been held by Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenkshi Marwah cited at 118 (2005) DLT 329 (SC) that " the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to u/s 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Before filing of the complaint, Court may hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that inquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. This expediency would normally be judged by the Court by weighing, not the magnitude of the injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon the administration of jutice".
25. In 1995 Crl J 1751, case titled as Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala, it was held that "it is not in all the cases when witness speaks falsehood that action shall be initiated against him for perjury by invoking section 340 Cr.P.C. There must be prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 12 of 14 Court that such a proceeding should be initiated for the interest of justice".
26.The ratio laid down in the aforementioned judicial pronouncement is that before adverting to an inquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C, the Court must be satisfied that the alleged offence is serious. The Court is to see whether or not, holding such an inquiry would be expedient in the interest of justice.
27.It has also been held by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in case titled as Jagjeet Kaur Vs. Harjeet Singh cited as 2000 I AD (Delhi) 129 that "the primary object to take proceeding u/s 340 Cr.P.C in instituting a complaint for giving false evidence, is to curb the evil of perjury and to keep the flow of proceeding in Courts unsullied and pure. It is only in a rare case, when the Court come to the conclusion that if a complaint is filed conviction is more or less a certainty, that it chooses to become a complainant. In such like contentious issues when the wife can again indulge in proving that the husband was wrong and she was right, it is not expedient for the Court to enter into the facts and become a complainant at the behest of the husband".
28.Thus, it is clear that where multiple litigations are pending between husband and wife before various forums and contradictions come before the court in various pleadings and evidences, these contradictions have to Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 13 of 14 be viewed differently as compared to the obvious and deliberate lies made before the Court by other parties. The Court should not proceed further and become a complainant at the behest of either of the parties unless and until it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so. The cases between husband and wife stand on an altogether different footing in this regard primarily because of long and multiple litigations between the parties wherein contradictions bound to occur.
29.Returning to the case in hand, It is very clear from the application filed by the respondent u/s 340 Cr.P.C that he has been pointing towards various contradictions made by the petitioner in her pleadings and evidence before various courts. He has also pointed towards the fact that the petitioner has been unable to prove the facts stated by her in her pleadings.
30.Merely because a party has been unable to prove a particular fact pleaded by her, it cannot be said that she had made a deliberate false statement in her pleadings for which she should be prosecuted for perjury.
31.Considering the oval all facts and circumstances of the present case, the relation between the parties and the pendency of multiple litigations between them I do not deem it expedient in the interest of justice to Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05 Unique ID No. 02401R1032232003 Page 14 of 14 proceed further under section 340 Cr.P.C. The application of the respondent is accordingly, dismissed.
Pronounced in the open (Shivali Sharma)
court today i.e.14.08.2012 MM/Mahila Court
West/Delhi
Smt. Rajni Sehrawat Vs. Sh. Rakesh Sehrawat No. 696/3/05