Delhi District Court
Gauri @ Supriya vs Davesh Kumar on 18 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI,
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-04:CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI: DELHI.
CNR No. DLCT01-004749-2023
CA No. 81/2023
Gauri @ Supriya
D/o. Sh. M.R. Arya
R/o. B-244, LIG Motia Khan,
Pahar Ganj, Delhi.
...... Appellant
Vs.
Davesh Kumar
S/o. Sh. T.R. Jajoria
R/o. 3/36, Vijay Nagar,
Double Storey, Delhi-110009.
...... Respondent
Date of institution of Revision : 05.04.2023
Date on which order reserved : 01.10.2024
Date on which order pronounced : 18.12.2024
ORDER
1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant u/s. 341 Cr.
P.C. challenging the impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by Ms. Jyoti Maheshwari, ld. M.M.-04 (Mahila Court), Central, THC, Delhi in Court Complaint No.03/2020, titled as CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 1 of 13 Davesh Kumar vs. Gauri whereby the application of the respondent u/s. 195 Cr. P.C. read with Section 340 Cr. P.C. was allowed.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The brief facts of the case necessary to decide the present revision petition are that the respondent was the husband of the appellant (marriage was dissolved vide decree of divorce dated 23.12.2022) and Ms. Amrit Rani was the mother-in-law of the appellant. The elder child of the appellant and the respondent namely Deepanshu had expired on 16.09.2009 and the respondent left the matrimonial home on 25.09.2009. After continuous discord, the appellant filed a petition u/s. 12 of DV Act where on the basis of her averments, favourable orders were passed in her favour by the Court. It is alleged that the appellant has intentionally deposed falsely with the sole motive to defeat the ends of justice and therefore, an application was filed by the respondent u/s. 340 Cr. P.C. against the appellant to initiate criminal proceedings against her. Vide the impugned order, the said application of the respondent was allowed and criminal proceedings were directed to be initiated against the appellant.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 27.01.2023, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.
CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 2 of 13SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
4. It is contended by ld. Counsel for appellant that besides the application u/s. 340 Cr. P.C., the respondent had also preferred similar application u/s. 340 Cr. P.C. before the Sessions Court presided over by ld. Special Judge (NDPS)-02, Central district, Tis Hazari Court in Misc. Criminal No. 742/2022 titled as Davesh Kumar Vs. Gauri and Ors. praying for the same relief on the same ground that contradictory responses were given by the complainant in the case of murder of her disabled son on the same set of facts as averred in the DV complaint. It is further contended that the said another application u/s. 340 Cr. P.C. was dismissed by the ld. Sessions Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2023 while holding that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry in the said offences. It is further argued that the said dismissal order, the respondent preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which was also dismissed vide judgment dated 01.02.2024. It is further argued that the judicial pronouncement by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upholding the dismissal of the application u/s. 340 Cr. P.C. among the same parties on the same set of facts and on the same grounds is squarely applicable to the present case and holds binding force and value for the purpose of adjudication of this appeal. It is further argued that the said order has attained finality as the same has not been challenged before the ld. Apex Court. It is further argued that in the CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 3 of 13 present case also, it is not expedient in the interest of justice to proceed with the inquiry. Ld. Counsel for appellant has therefore, prayed that the impugned order may kindly be set aside. Ld. Counsel for appellant has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
(i) Chajoo Ram vs. Radhey Shyam & Anr, 1971 AIR SC 1367
(ii) Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. UOI - 2014 AIR SC 1020
(iii) Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. 2019 AIR(SC) 2675
(iv) Rameshwar Vs. Sunil Grover 2016 AD(Delhi) 425
(v) Prof. Chintamani Malviya Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh 2018 AIR(SC) 2656
(vi) Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited & Anr. Vs. CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited & Anr. 2016 (12) SCC 713
(vii) Om Prakash Aggarwal vs. Bharat Vidhu Pandey-2007 (1) JCC 458. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT
5. To the contrary, Ld. Counsel for respondent argued that the appellant had instituted the DV case against the respondent and his mother Ms. Amrit Rani but later on she had dropped Ms. Amrit Rani from the said proceedings and during her cross-examination, she gave false and contradictory responses resulting in dismissal of her complaint under DV Act. It is further contended that on 16.10.2010, the appellant had filed an application u/s. 12 of DV Act alongwith the interim application seeking monthly maintenance stating therein that since 16.09.2009, the respondents are not providing food, CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 4 of 13 clothes, medicines etc. nor giving any money for school fee of minor child Rajat and that since 28.07.2010, the respondents are not giving any money for day to day fooding and has also locked kitchen. It is further contended that the appellant had filed an affidavit stating therein that on 25.09.2009, when the respondent left the matrimonial home, he left the appellant and child Rajat at the mercy of the neighbours. It is further contended that the appellant had also made allegations of committing murder against respondent and his mother Smt. Amrit Rani but later on the appellant withdrew her case against Smt. Amrit Rani. It is further contended that on such basis, the ld. Trial Court passed an order to pay maintenance in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant w.e.f. 21.10.2010 and the respondent paid a sum of Rs. 3,61,156/- to the appellant till the conclusion of the case. It is further contended that on 28.01.2015, the appellant had filed her evidence by way of affidavit and repeated almost the same allegations. It is further contended that during cross-
examination, the appellant admitted that all her expenses for herself and my minor son Rajat were incurred by her mother in law Ms. Amrit Rani since the respondent has abandoned her in 2009. It is further contended that she also admitted that her monthly expenditure is around Rs. 53,000/- which is born by her mother in law, sister of mother in law and her lawyer. It is further contended that on 26.08.2019, on the basis of evidence, the ld. Trial Court dismissed the case of the appellant observing that the complainant is not a credible CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 5 of 13 witness and she is not able to substantiate the allegations of domestic violence. It is further contended that the ld. Trial Court before passing the impugned order had thoroughly gone through the evidence and other material on record and thereafter, it was concluded that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint be made by the Court against the appellant. It is further contended that giving of deliberate false statement with a view to obtain favourable order is interference in the due course of judicial proceedings and as such it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant. It is further contended that there is no error in the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court. It is further contended that the another application u/s. 340 Cr. P.C. was filed against five persons who had deposed against the respondent before the ld. Sessions Court with regard to murder and other allegations but the present case mainly related to the maintenance amount for which the appellant had filed an application and obtained favourable order of maintenance by misleading the Court which continued for nine years. It is further contended that the appeal is liable to be dismissed as the State which is a necessary party has not been impleaded by the appellant. It is therefore, prayed that the present appeal may kindly be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for respondent has relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :-
(i) Ritu @ Ridima vs. Sandeep Singh Sangwan, CRR 457/2022, High Court of Punjab and Haryana CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 6 of 13
(ii) Weizmann Ltd. vs. M/s. Shoes East Ltd. and Ors., Delhi High Court.
(iii) Jagdish Prasad vs. State, 160 (2009) DLT 599 and
(iv) Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. The State and Ors.
6. This Court has heard the contentions from both the sides and has perused the judicial record.
7. The ld. Trial Court had allowed the application u/s. 340 Cr.
P.C. of the respondent and directed to initiate the criminal proceedings against the appellant vide the impugned order. The relevant extract of the impugned order is as follows :-
"18. On the basis of the analysis above, it is crystal clear that the respondent intentionally and maliciously deposed falsely and made false averments, to mislead the Court and obtain a desired order. The Court has to reach a conclusion as to whether, prima facie, the offence of giving false evidence has been committed in the present case and the answer to the same, is unequivocally in the affirmative. The next question to be answered by the Court is, whether it is expedient in the Interest of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.PC against the respondents, Throughout the course of trial in the D.V. Case, the respondent resorted to false averments and false testimony, with the result that the applicant not only had to pay his hard- earned money to the respondent as Interim maintenance, but he also had to undergo imprisonment for more than a year, with loss of reputation, job and the precious time of his life. The beneficial provisions, aimed at helping an aggrieved woman and the various forums for judicial recourse, available to the respondent were all misused, and misled in order to help the complainant, fulfill her evil designs. The Courts are enjoined with the responsibility to deal appropriately with unscrupulous litigants, who are trying to manoeuvre the law, for their ill-motivations and the present case is a glaring example of the same. The conduct of the respondent throughout the trial, as discussed above, mandates the Court to Initiate an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.PC against the respondent Gauri for giving false evidence before the Court. The Court cannot set the clock back, but it must ensure that such a tendency of obtaining favourable orders by making false claims and averments, is discouraged and stemmed. The Courts cannot remain mute spectators when the provisions of law, aimed at providing relief to aggrieved persons, are misused and arm- twisted, by the parties for their own narrow gains and CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 7 of 13 oblique motives. The tragedy befalling on the respondent and the acrimony between the parties, does not give an unbridled licence to a party, to rope In Innocent persons, on the basis of false averments and pleadings and use the Courts, for personal vendetta, instead of seeking justice. The observations of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in IRCON International Ltd. Vs. Union of India, 108 (2003) DLT 656), are relevant, in the present scenario and are quoted below:-
"A Court is thus required to ensure that the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice is not obstructed. Of late, litigants have tended to utter falsehoods with impunity, as on several occasions they have managed to get away with such false statements owing to the unnecessary indulgence and misplaced generosity. False averments on oath not only vitiate the probity of judicial proceedings but considerable time is spent and expenses incurred for truth to be unravelled. Thus, if a dishonest plaintiff secures and continues an interim order on a false averment and a dishonest defendant delays the proceedings by pleading a false defense, then unless and until willful lies are viewed sternly and dealt with effectively, the judicial system will suffer thereby harming the honest litigant. Contumacious falsehoods by unscrupulous litigants have been eating into the vitals of our judicial system and ought to be put down firmly".
19. A holistic reading of the present case, clearly reveals that, owing to the false averments and false testimony of the respondent, there is sufficient material to proceed against the respondent Gauri. Further, the circumstances of the case and the above analysis, lead to a clear inference that it is expedient in the interests of justice that a complaint is made by the Court against the respondent Gauri, as the act of the respondent Gauri, if found and proved to be malicious, makes her liable under Sections 182/193/196/209, IPC. In light of the above, the present application moved on behalf of the applicant Davesh stands disposed of as allowed. The Reader of the court is directed to make a complaint in this regard before Ld. CMM (Central), THC, Delhi, within two weeks from today."
8. In the present case, it is apparent that the appellant has been contradictory to the averments of her complaint on multiple occasions. Initially, she had lodged the domestic violence CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 8 of 13 petition against the respondent and her mother in law Ms. Amrit Rani alleging that she was subjected to mental and physical cruelties by both of them but in her evidence by way of affidavit, she retracted the allegations levelled against her mother in law on the ground that there was some misunderstanding. Further, with regard to maintenance, she had admitted in cross-examination that her mother in law was incurring the expenses borne by her and the minor child Rajat in the tune of Rs. 47,000/-, though she had alleged in her complaint that no food, clothes, medicines and money for school fee was provided by the respondents therein and that she was left at the mercy of the neighbours. These facts reveals that there have been false averments by the appellant in her complaint as well as in her affidavit and testimony. These falsities and omissions seems to be deliberate only to obtain favourable orders from the Court, which she managed to obtain as the Court order interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the appellant w.e.f. 21.10.2010 which continued for nine years till the dismissal of the complaint on 26.08.2019.
9. Not only this, the observations regarding the appellant being not a credible witness has also come forward in the divorce proceedings before the ld. Family Court as well as in the murder trial before the ld. Sessions Court. The appellant had filed a criminal complaint after much delay (after filing of divorce case by the respondent) alleging murder of her son by the respondent in conspiracy with her mother Ms. Amrit Rani CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 9 of 13 but very conveniently, she retracted her allegations against Ms. Amrit Rani during the trial. The respondent suffered incarceration for about 13 months but finally he was acquitted in the said murder case vide order dated 29.08.2019 of the ld. Sessions Court. The respondent had preferred one application u/s. 340 Cr. P.C. before the ld. Sessions Court but the same was disallowed and when challenging the appeal, the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
10. The facts of the previous application u/s. 340 Cr. PC. and that of the instant application are different so much as the instant application relates to the false averments given in the petition relating to DV Act. The order on the application u/s. 340 Cr. P.C. in a different matter on different facts cannot act as a binding precedent in the present case. Every case has to be dealt on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. In the present case, it is apparent that the appellant has resorted to false testimony which has led to the passing of the favourable orders to the advantage of the appellant which has led the respondent to pay his hard earned money for a long period of nine years. The DV Act is a benevolent statute meant for the aid of aggrieved females to prevent destitution and starvation. The beneficial provisions of DV Act have been misused and the Court being misled by the appellant to fulfill her nefarious designs.
11. The Section 340 Cr. P.C. provides that where the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 10 of 13 inquiry be made into the offences, as provided under Section 195 Cr. P.C. which appears to have been committed in relation to a proceedings in that Court, the Court may initiate the criminal proceedings against the accused.
12. Section 340 Cr. P.C. not only mandates the Court to form an opinion whether prima facie offences as provided u/s. 195 Cr. P.C. appears have been committed but also to form an opinion that initiation of criminal proceedings are expedient in the interest of justice or not. The ld. Trial Court had formed the opinion that owing to the false averments and false testimony of the appellant, there is sufficient material to proceed against the appellant and the circumstances of the case lead to clear inference that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint be made by the Court against the appellant.
13. It is well settled law that if a wrong or misleading statement is deliberately and willfully made by a party to a litigation with a view to obtain favourable order, it definitely amounts to prejudice or interference in the due course of judicial proceedings. False statement and suppression of truth-one by action and other by inaction, interferes with the stream of justice and obstructs the administration of justice. The Court has bounden duty to protect the interest of justice in due administration of justice and it is necessary that the parties who make false statements or conceal material facts with the motive to gain undue benefit from the Court, must be dealt with stern hands. If the party attempts to pollute the stream of CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 11 of 13 justice by taking a recourse to misrepresentation and concealment, he does so at his own risk and he must be ready to bear the consequence that are bound to follow. There must be deterrence for the litigants to abuse the process of law by deceit. No one should be allowed to depose falsely with impurity. If the false averments are discovered, it is the duty of the Court to take appropriate steps to ensure that no advantage is derived by the abuse of legal process and the dishonest litigants must be discouraged. False, misleading or wrong statements given deliberately and obtaining favourable orders from the Court undoubtedly tentamounts to interference in the administration of justice.
14. In a similar matter, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Smt. Ritu @ Ridhima case (Supra), observed as follows :-
"In my opinion, this explanation is completely falacious. The petitioner is an Assistant Professor and a highly educated person. At no stage of proceedings uptill her cross examination did she disclose that she was employed including when her application for interim maintenance was decided and Rs.5000/- was awarded to her. Assuming that the said fact was missing in her petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C, the Court could have been informed during the course of proceedings that there had been change of circumstances regarding her obtaining employment. However, as has already been mentioned above, no such information was furnished and only the cross examination revealed her job and consequent salary. Thus it can safely be said that the possibility of her conviction was high and her actions were certainly deliberate and conscious to obtain CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 12 of 13 maintenance. As has already been mentioned above, the various judgments referred to by the counsel are on the facts of those cases and as such do not amount to a binding precedent. The practice of making false assertions in court ought to be discouraged because the dignity and sanctity of the court is undermined by such conduct of a party to a lis. Thus keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed."
15. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the ld. Trial Court has rightly proceeded to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant by allowing the application u/s. 340 Cr. P.C. of the respondent. There seems to be no error, illegality, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the ld. Trial Court and the same is accordingly upheld. The present appeal is hereby dismissed.
16. Copy of this order be sent to the ld. Trial Court alongwith the TCR for information and necessary action.
17. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court on 18th December, 2024 (SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI) ASJ-04/CENTRAL/DELHI 18.12.2024(VR) Digitally signed SUSHIL by SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI ANUJ Date:
2024.12.18 TYAGI 04:39:49 +0530 CA No. 81/2023 Gauri @ Supriya Vs. Davesh Kumar Page No. 13 of 13