Delhi District Court
Gopal Malhotra vs Meena Malhotra on 20 August, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR-IV: ADDL.
SESSIONS JUDGE -02-CUM-SPECIAL JUDGE-NDPS ACT,
NORTH WEST DISTRICT, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 208/22
GOPAL MALHOTRA
S/o Late Sh. Ramji Dass
R/o L-389C, Rishi Nagar,
Rani Bagh, Saraswati Vihar,
Delhi-110034. .... Petitioner/Revisionist
Vs.
MEENA MALHOTRA
D/o Late Sh. Bhakt Ram,
R/o H.No. 3/8,
Sehdev Gali, Pandey Road,
Vishwas Nagar,
Delhi-110032.
Also At :
A-6, DDA Slum & J J Wing,
Vikas Kuteer, ITO,
P.O. Delhi-110002. .... Respondent
Date of Institution : 12.04.2022
Date when judgment was reserved : 18.08.2022
Date when judgment is pronounced : 20.08.2022
JUDGMENT
1. This revision petition under Sections 397 of Cr.P.C. has been C.R No. 208/22 Gopal Malhotra Vs. Meena Malhotra Page 1 of 9 preferred by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 15.12.2021 (herein after referred as impugned order) passed by the Court of Ms. Sanya Dalal, Ld. MM (Mahila Court), North West, Rohini Courts, Delhi whereby the apLd. MM had dismissed the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C for initiation of proceedings under Section 195 of Cr.P.C against the respondent for committing the offences under Sections 193/199/200/209 IPC and for committing the offence of perjury before Ld. Trial Court on the basis whereof, the applicant have finally succeeded in securing the order dated 17.01.2019 from the Ld. Trial Court in his favour.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the revisionist is taking out this perjury application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of Cr.P.c against the respondent on the ground that in the aforesaid proceedings, the respondent had intentionally made false statement (orally and written) to prove the fact that the revisionist is involved in offences under Sections 354/354B/506/509/34 IP which is an offene under Section 191 IPC and has fabricated the name of revisionist in case No. 2808/2017 giving a fake/non-existent circumstances, knowingly used false evidence, as genuine evidence, which is an offence under Section of 196 IPC, had intentionally made a false statement in one's pleadings, as to the point which was very material to the facts of the case/issues which were agitated before the Court, which is an offence under Section 199 of IPC, had knowingly used pleadings containing the false statement, as true, which is an offence C.R No. 208/22 Gopal Malhotra Vs. Meena Malhotra Page 2 of 9 under Section 200 of IPC. It would include such cases where the person although doesn't himself make false pleadings, yet users those false pleadings knowing well that the said pleadings are false.
3. It is further contended that the revisionist says that the respondent has filed a case under Section 354/354B/506/509/34 IPC and also lodged FIR No. 181/2015 knowing fully well that the revisionist is not involved in any such serious allegations.
4. It is further contended that the Court of Ms. Aakanshu Vyas, Ld. MM, Mahila Court, North West dropped the proceedings against the revisionist in this case and prima facie offences under Sections 354/354B/506/509/34 IP were dismissed against the revisionist and also no charge was framed against the revisionist.
5. It is further contended that had the true state of affairs being revealed by the respondent, the revisionist would not have gone through the humiliation and undergone the trial if the respondent had not taken recourse of false statement both orally and in writing, the revisionist is filing this misc. application praying the Court to exercise their powers under Section 340 Cr.P.C read with Section 195 Cr.P.C.
6. It is further contended that in the aforesaid complaint under Section 354/354B/506/509/34 IPC, the complainant alleges that the revisionist is involved in such serious offences of affirmation by the C.R No. 208/22 Gopal Malhotra Vs. Meena Malhotra Page 3 of 9 respondent, wherein the revisionist has never been involved and had to bear the brunch of false allegation by the respondent supported on oath and statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C in front of Ld. MM.
7. It is further contended that notice was issued to the revisionist and the revisionist appeared before the Court on many dates as and when called to defend the baseless allegations and the are levelled just to harass and humiliate the revisionist mentally, physically and monetarily.
8. It is further contended that while dropping the proceedings against the revisionist, this Court categorically held that there exist no involvement of revisionist in all the charges levelled against the revisionist and FIR No. 181/2015 under Sections 354/354B/506/509/34 IPC has been lodged by complainant in instant case which clearly reflects that the entire allegation made by the complainant against the applicant are false, baseless and have been levelled by the complainant just to grab money from the revisionist, here the respondent knowing fully well that the revisionist has never involved in such serious alleged crime had deliberately put false allegations against the applicant supported by and giving affirmation under oath.
9. It is further contended that as per Section 191 IPC, giving false statement, whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an C.R No. 208/22 Gopal Malhotra Vs. Meena Malhotra Page 4 of 9 expression provision of law to state the truths or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any statement, makes any statement which is false and which he either knows to believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of his section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing he does not know.
10. Besides the other grounds, the following grounds have been raised by the revisionist for filing the present revision petition :
(i) That the respondent had filed a case under Sections 354/354B/506/509/34 IPC and also lodged FIR No. 181/2015 knowing fully well that the revisionist is not involved in any such serious allegations.
(ii) That the Court of Ms. Aakansha Vyas, Ld. MM Mahila Court had dropped the proceedings against the revisionist in this case and prima facie offence under Sections 354/354B/506/509/34 IPC was dismissed against the revisionist and no charge was framed against the revisionist.
(iii) That had the true state of affairs being revealed by the respondent, the revisionist would not have gone through humiliation and undergone the trial.C.R No. 208/22 Gopal Malhotra Vs. Meena Malhotra Page 5 of 9
11. In support of his submissions, Ld. Counsel for the revisionist relied upon the following judgments :
(i) Rita Markandey v. Surjit Singh Arora (1996) 6 SCC 14
(ii) Murray & Co. Vs. Ashok Kumar Newatia & Anr. AIR 2000 SC 833 10
(iii) Bineet Kumar Singh AIR 2001 SC 2018 ;
(iv) Naraindas Vs. Government of M.P. & Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1252
(v) The Advocate General for the State of Bihiar Vs. M/s. Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries & Anr. AIR 1980 SC 946;
(vi) Afzal & Anr. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (1996) 7 SC 397.
(vii) K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Aurhority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481.
(viii) R. Vs. General Commissioners for the purposes of Income Tax Act for the District of Kensington (1917) 1 KB 486.
(ix) Bineet Kumar Singh Vs. Government of Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 2018 of Hon'ble Apex Court.
(x) Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma 1995 (1) SCC 421 of Hon'ble Apex Court.
(xi) D.S. Poonia Vs. Yumnam Dimbajit Singh AIR 2003 SC 1855.
It is, therefore, prayed to call the TCR and set aside/quash the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 passed by Ld. Trial Court.
12. Despite opportunity, no reply was filed on behalf of the respondent and Ld. Counsel for the respondent straightaway addressed the arguments.
C.R No. 208/22 Gopal Malhotra Vs. Meena Malhotra Page 6 of 913. I have heard arguments from both the sides and have carefully gone through the entire record along with the application moved for condonation of delay.
14. Before proceeding further, here it is important to refer the case titled as "Bindu & Ar. v. State of NCT of Delhi; Crl. Rev. P. no. 406/2017" passed by Hon'ble High Court wherein it has observed that :
"22. The first version given to the police is more reliable than an improved version which comes in later, after the complainant has had an opportunity to mulling over the facts. Any improvement which is made in the statement first given is liable to be disregarded, if it appears to the court that the subsequent statement is unreliable.
15. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal, (1979) 3 SCC 4 has held that :
16. ... At the stage of framing of charge the Trial Court has the power to sift and weigh evidence though for a limited purpose and finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out.
17. Charge would be framed not on mere suspicion but on the facts giving rise to grave suspicion of the accused having committed the offence.
20. The fact that there is clear improvement in the allegation leveled against petitioner No. 2, so as to bring in the offence under section 354 IPC, raises doubt on the C.R No. 208/22 Gopal Malhotra Vs. Meena Malhotra Page 7 of 9 version of the complainant.
21. Reference may also be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in George & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Anr.:
(1998) 4 SCC 605, wherein, the Supreme Court has held that the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C cannot be used as substantive evidence and can be used for the purposes of contradicting or corroborating such witness".
16. Considering the facts and circumstances as well as discussion above, I am of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order dated 17.01.2019 because it was reasoned order as it had been observed by Ld. MM that :
"Further, there is no allegation against accused Gopal in the complaint. The only allegation against accused Gopal is in the statement of the complainant under Section 164 Cr.P.C to the effect that he along with co-accused persons tortures the complainant and makes bad gestures to her etc. However, these allegations are vague as no date and time has been mentioned as to when the accused committed the abovesaid acts. Therefore, accused Gopal is discharged."
17. It cannot be said that any finding in respect of false allegations levelled by complainant against the present revisionist/accused has been made by Ld. Trial Court and the impugned order dated 15.12.2021 (passed on the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C.) also did not find any infirmity because the same has been passed while observing that :
"However, these allegations are vague as no date and time has been mentioned as to when the accused committed the above said acts. Therefore accused Gopal C.R No. 208/22 Gopal Malhotra Vs. Meena Malhotra Page 8 of 9 is discharge".
Further, held that :
"in the order on charge nowhere it is mentioned that the accused Gopal and applicant herein was discharged on account of false case filed against him or on account of false statements of the complainant".
18. Hence, the present revision petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The present revision petition is accordingly dismissed.
TCR, if any be sent back with the copy of this judgment/order.
(Rakesh KumarIV) Announced in Open Court ASJ02cumSpecial Judge, on 20th Day of August, 2022 (NDPS), NorthWest District, Rohini:Delhi C.R No. 208/22 Gopal Malhotra Vs. Meena Malhotra Page 9 of 9