Delhi District Court
Johri Lal Jain vs Sh. Vijay Kumar on 5 February, 2015
IN THE COURT OF Dr. KAMINI LAU: ADDL. DISTRICT
JUDGEII (CENTRAL): TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
RCA No. 07/2013
Johri Lal Jain
S/o Sh. Sunder Lal Jain
Chelmsfort Road, New Delhi.
.............. Appellant
Versus
Sh. Vijay Kumar
Proprietor News Line Times
1630, Sohan Ganj, Subzi Mandi, Dehli.
............ Respondent
Date of Institution: 21.08.2010
Arguments heard on: 05.02.2015
Date of Decision: 05.02.2015
ORDER (Oral):
This appeal has been filed by the appellant Johri Lal Jain against the order dated 23.07.2010 passed by the Ld. Civil Judge02, (North) in Suit No. M26/08 titled as 'Vijay Kumar Vs. Johri Lal Jain & Ors' dismissing the application under Section 340 Cr.PC filed by the appellant (Defendant No. 1 before Trial Court). The appeal has been filed on various grounds which are not being repeated for the sake of brevity.
Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 1 of 10 Apart from the fact that the appellant has alleged that impugned order of Ld. Trial Court is against the principles of natural justice and is liable to be set aside on the same ground, reliance has also been placed on the following cases :
1. Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors2002 CRL. L.J. 548 (SC).
2. R. S. Bakshi Vs. H. K. Malhari (Delhi) (DB) 2002 (2) RCR 247.
3. Chandra Shashi Vs. Anil Kumar Verma, JT 1994 (7) S.C. 459.
It is alleged by the appellant that in view of the case law cited by him as above, the application under Section 340 Cr.PC was maintainable and the impugned order passed by the Ld. Civil Judge is liable to be set aside.
The respondent has not appeared despite valid service. I have considered the submissions made before me and perused the Trial Court record and also the impugned order and the grounds raised in the appeal. The appellant before this court was the defendant no. 1 before the Ld. Trial Court where the respondent before this court Vijay Kumar had filed a suit against appellant and Bir Singh SHO Police Station Subzi Mandi which suit was dismissed on 28.5.2015 after framing a preliminary issue on 12.7.2004 holding that after passing of the order by Ld. ARC confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court, Vijay Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 2 of 10 Kumar had no locusstandi to file the same.
Thereafter, application under Section 340 Cr.PC was filed by Vijay Kumar against Johri Lal Jain and Bir Singh SHO PS Subzi Mandi alleging that in the suit filed by him he had made false averments that he is a proprietor of "News Line Times" and had been carrying on his printing activities at the premises No. 1630, Sohan Ganj, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi07. In his plaint he has falsely represented that he is a tenant in the said premises occupying ground floor, mezzanine floor, first floor and partly built up construction on second floor as shown red in the site plan in that suit. In support of his false claim of being a tenant he has placed in evidence in this court forged and fabricated rent receipts with intent to give false evidence in his favour and against the petitioner on 27.11.1991 during the judicial proceedings and the said forged rent receipts are as under:
S. No. Rent Receipt No. Dated Period
1. 31 (G Floor) 4.9.1979 1.9.1979 to 30.9.1979
2. 15 (G Floor) 2.2.1991 1.2.1991 to 28.2.1991
3. 3 (Mz. Floor) 4.9.1979 1.9.1979 to 30.9.1979
4. 15 (Mz. Floor) 2.2.1991 1.2.1991 to 28.2.1991
5. 18 (I & II Floor) 4.9.1979 1.9.1979 to 30.9.1979
6. 15 (I & II Floor) 2.2.1991 1.2.1991 to 28.2.1991
It was alleged that the plaintiff (respondent this court) illegally set up printing press named and styled as "News Line Times"
Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 3 of 10 for which he obtained license from DCP (Licensing) Police Headquarters, Delhi by falsely representing that he was tenant in the aforesaid suit premises and that he also falsely alleged that he had obtained 'No Objection Certificate" from the owner / land lord and the said licence dated 22.4.1991 was also filed along with his plaint. He also obtained stay order dated 27.11.1991 on the basis of those documents. These forged documents i.e. rent receipts, NOC etc. were also used by him for obtaining the licence for running printing press from the DCP (Licensing) Police Headquarters, Delhi. The petitioner (appellant before this court) alleged himself to be the true owner of the suit premises and when he informed this fact to the DCP (Licensing) and made complaint to the DCP informing him about the forgery and fabrication of evidence for obtaining licence, the DCP (Licensing) issued notice to respondent. The rent receipts produced by the plaintiff in this court as well as before the DCP (Licensing) was held to be forged and fabricated by the DCP (Licensing) vide his speaking order dated 28.8.1992 and the grounds for revocation of the said printing press licence have been stated by him in his order of the same date. The plaintiff even in his amended plaint filed on 14.12.1992 and still maintained in the plaint that he was tenant in the suit premises by virtue of the aforesaid forged rent receipts and also falsely represented that he has the printing press license. The petitioner has instituted eviction petition against the respondent who was defendant no. 3 in that suit where it was observed that :
Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 4 of 10 "......... it is the case of respondent no. 3 himself that he is not a tenant under the petitioner. Perusal of the registered sale deed dated 31.8.1992 in favour of petitioner (defendant no. 1 herein) also shows that respondent no. 3 was not the tenant under the previous owner either unauthorized person has no right to contest the eviction petition. ........"
This order was ultimately upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the SLP filed by the respondent in the present application.
Vide this application it is requested by the petitioner that the plaintiff has committed an offence punishable under Section 193/195 read with Section 464/468/470 and 471 of IPC and requested this court to lodge a complaint in this respect before the court of competent jurisdiction / Metropolitan Magistrate for trial and conviction of the respondent Vijay Kumar in accordance with the procedure under Section 340 Cr.PC.
It was alleged by the appellant that the plaintiff before the Trial Court namely Vijay Kumar had concealed that the DCP has recorded the statement of the concerned persons by whom the answering respondent was inducted as a tenant. It was further alleged that there was some dispute among the legal heirs of the suit property and the petitioner has purchased the property of one of the legal heir among several legal heirs. There are several cases which are pending between the parties and in none of the cases, the defendant / applicant has alleged Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 5 of 10 that the rent receipt filed by the plaintiff is false and fabricated nor he has taken any action against the respondent. With these assertions, the respondent / plaintiff in that case has requested that the application be dismissed.
In rejoinder, Vijay Kumar (respondent before this court) has averred that his suit was dismissed on 28.5.2005 and his appeal was also dismissed on 22.7.2008.
After considering the submissions made before it, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the said application under Section 340 Cr.PC while observing following which I quote as under:
"...... For the purpose of determining the scope of 340 Cr.PC, in respect of the present application, the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of 'Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah' 2005 AIR (SC) 2119 is being relied upon for the adjudication of present controversy.
In Iqbal Singh Marwah (Supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India after considering the conflicting judgments in the case of Surjit Singh Vs. Balbir Singh 1996 (III) SCC 533 and Sachidanand Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 1998 (II) SCC 493 has held that:
"In view of the discussions made above we are of the opinion that Sachidanand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195 (1) (b) (i) Cr.PC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 6 of 10 the document was in custodia legis".
It was further observed that "In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.PC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195 (1) (b), as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice" . This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that inquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195 (1) (b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like but such documents may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 7 of 10
(b) (ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remedyless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remedyless, has to be discarded. ......"
Therefore, one thing is clear from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that if the forgery of any document has not been committed when the documents is in custody of the court, the provisions of Section 340 are not attracted and any person who has complained of the forgery may lodge a criminal complaint against the person against whom the allegation of forgery is made as it was held that Section 195 b (i) Cr.PC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in that Section have been committed in respect of document after it had been produced or given in evidence in any proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document is custodia legis. It is not the case of the petitioner that the documents are forged during the time when they are in the court custody but already forged documents have been filed by the plaintiff in the suit. Therefore, the petitioner has the remedy of lodging complaint with the police and Section 340 Cr.PC is not attracted.
Secondly, the previous suit was dismissed on the basis of preliminary issue and the plaintiff i.e. the respondent in the present application was not having the opportunity to prove that the rent receipts and other documents were not forged and neither was there any opportunity for the defendant / petitioner to prove that the rent receipts were forged. There is no declaration from any court of competent jurisdiction who have declared that the rent receipts / other Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 8 of 10 documents which the petitioner is claiming as forged are forged and fabricated documents. On these grounds also the application is not maintainable. It appears that this application has been unnecessary moved without any legal basis. The offences mentioned in the application i.e. under Section 193/195, 464/468/470 and 471 of IPC are related to giving false evidence as well as committing forgery etc. As has been already discussed that there is no allegation in the petition that the forgery has been done with the documents in the custody of the court and the documents filed by the respondent was not considered in evidence as the case was decided on the basis of the preliminary issue regarding the maintainability of the suit due to which there was no occasion for the court to give any finding as to the validity of the documents filed by the respondent in the previous suit. The mere filing of the documents does not become a piece of evidence unless and untill it is duly proved in the court as per law. Neither it appears that the filing of such documents in the court has in any way adversely affected the administration of justice as is the requirement in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Iqbal Singh Marwah (as discussed above)..........."
I have considered the rival contentions and perused the record placed before me. At the very Outset I may observe that the provisions of Section 340 Cr.PC can be invoked in the cases where the documents in question have been used as piece of evidence during the course of proceedings and under the given circumstances mere filing of the documents does not make a party liable till such time the said documents are used as evidence in any case which in the present case has Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 9 of 10 not been done.
Secondly the appellant has failed to satisfied the trial court and also this court to the extent that mere filing of the said documents had substantially and adversely affected the administration of justice. The provisions of Section 340 Cr.PC can be invoked only in those cases where offences under Section 195 (i) (b) Cr. PC is shown to have been committed during the proceedings in any court i.e. during the time the document was custodia legis and thereafter if court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make such a complaint. This expediency has to be judged by the magnitude of the injury suffered by the applicant on account of such forgery. Under no circumstances can the parties to the litigation compel or pressurize the court into making such complaint, as the appellant before this court is now seeking to do in respect of the proceedings in the main suit which has already come to an end about Ten years ago. The present appeal is only in the nature of luxury litigation. I find no ground to intervene in the impugned order of Ld. Trial Court. The appeal is hereby dismissed.
The trial court record be sent back along with copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room. Announced in the open court (Dr. KAMINI LAU) Dated: 05.02.2015 ADJII(CENTRAL)/ DELHI Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 10 of 10 Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar RCA No. 07/13 5.2.2015 Present: Appellant in person.
None for respondent.
The appellant is present in the court and his counsel is not responding. Record reveals that for the last many dates the counsel for the appellant is not appearing. Be listed for orders at 4:00 PM.
(Dr. Kamini Lau)
ADJ02, Central/5.2.2015
4:00 PM
Present: Appellant in person.
None for respondent.
Vide my separate detailed order, the appeal has been dismissed. The trial court record be sent back along with copy of this order. Appeal file be consigned to Record Room.
(Dr. Kamini Lau) ADJ02, Central/5.2.2015 Johri Lal Jain Vs. Vijay Kumar, RCA 07/13 Page No. 11 of 10