Delhi District Court
Sh.Ashit Malik & Anr vs Pgdav College & Ors on 17 April, 2008
//1//
IN THE COURT OF SH. DAYA PRAKASH :
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE : DELHI
Suit No.: 154/05
SH.ASHIT MALIK & ANR.
...Plaintiffs
Versus
PGDAV COLLEGE & ORS.
...Defendants
ORDER
1. By this order I shall dispose of the application filed by the plaintiffs u/s.340 Cr.P.C. against Sh.R.M.Bhardwaj, Principal PGDAV College (Evening), Delhi for offences committed u/s.191 & 193 IPC.
2. In the application, it is stated that defendant in support of their case adduced the evidence of Sh.R.M.Bharadwaj who appeared as DW1. It is stated that during the cross examination of the said witness DW1 was directed to produce the service book, Dispatch and Receipt register and all the original bills passed by the College. It is stated that on next date of hearing i.e. 17.07.2007 the said witness was unable to produce the service book of Late Sh.J.L.Malik and the 1/6 //2// case was adjourned to 16.10.2007. On 16.10.2007 DW1 appeared before this Hon'ble Court and categorically deposed on oath that :
".....the service book of Late Sh.J.L.Malik was not maintained by the College when he retired...."
It is further stated that DW1 produced four official communications pertaining to Late Sh.J.L.Malik from the documents brought by him on 16.10.2007. It is stated that two of the communications are official letters written by the PGDAV College to the Delhi University and other two are the official replies given by the Delhi University to the PGDAV College. It is stated that all the said communications which have been produced by the witness DW1 are the letters which are about 18-20 years old wherein it is clearly mentioned that the Service Book, the personal file and the other official documents of Late Sh.J.L.Malik were maintained by the College but DW1 has deliberately and maliciously made a false statement on oath that the service book of Late Sh.J.L.Malik was not being maintained by the College. It is stated that the witness has thus committed an act of perjury and is liable to be prosecuted in accordance with law.
It is stated that this is the fit case where this Hon'ble Court ought to exercise its power u/s.340 Cr.P.C. and initiate prosecution against DW1 as the said witness who is also Head of the educational 2/6 //3// institution has on oath deliberately made an incorrect statement which undermines and obstructs free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice and aims at striking a blow at the rule of law.
Accordingly it is prayed that present application be allowed and carry out detailed investigation/enquiry in order to summon, prosecute and punish the DW1 namely Sh.R.M.Bhardwaj for having committed the offence as entailed u/s.191 and Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. In reply defendant states that present application is misuse of the process of this Hon'bleCourt and is intended to pressurizing the Principal of the College Sh.R.M.Bhardwaj to succumb to the untenable and inadmissible claims of the applicants/plaintiffs in the main suit. It is further stated that what in substance DW1 had deposed was that the service book of Late Sh.J.L.Malik was not maintained once he stood retired from his services in the College and further his service book maintained before retirement was not available/traceable as per the information given to him by the College Office. It is stated that any contrary inference sought to be drawn from what DW1 deposed during his deposition as DW1 is specifically denied. It is stated that the service book of the deceased was being maintained during the period of his service in the College though the 3/6 //4// said witness DW1 was informed by the College Office that the said service book of the deceased was not available/traceable. It is further stated that the said service book has now been traced and can be made available/filed on record if so directed by this Hon'ble Court. It is denied that witness DW1 gave any false evidence intentionally, deliberately and maliciously which is contrary to official record. It is denied that there exists any ground for initiating any proceedings u/s.340 Cr.P.C. and Sh.R.M.Bhardwaj is liable to be tried, prosecuted or punished u/s.340 Cr.P.C. Accordingly it is prayed that the application of the defendants be dismissed with costs.
4. Arguments heard.
5. I have seen the file, application, its reply, citations, heard the arguments and feel that the application filed by the plaintiffs u/s.340 Cr.P.C. against Sh.R.M.Bhardwaj, Principal PGDAV College (Evening), Delhi for offences committed u/s.191 & 193 IPC be dismissed with following grounds :
Firstly, plaintiff is agitated by the wordings in cross examination which are as follows:
4/6
//5// "I have brought the personal file of the deceased Sh.J.L.Malik. The service book of Sh.J.L.Malik was not maintained by the college when he retired."
"The defendant college did not maintain any service book of the employees when Late Sh.J.L.Malik retired."
There is nothing intentional wrong statement by the DW1 Sh.R.M.Bhardwaj. Sh.R.M.Bhardwaj is the Principal of the college and merely deposed on the information supplied to him by the College office. Hence he cannot be imputed about giving wrong facts before court.
Secondly, I do not think the facts as above stated are wrong facts. It is well known that when the person retires, the service book is closed and no more maintained by the establishment and there is nothing wrong when DW1 states that the service book of Sh.J.L.Malik was not maintained by the College when he retires. It might be that the sentence is not happily worded it does not amount that wrong statement on Oath by DW1.
Thirdly, plaintiff has not stated under what specific section of IPC the complaint be referred. I have seen the Sections 191 and 193 of Indian Penal Code and find that the allegations are not 5/6 //6// covered u/s.191 and 193 of IPC.
Fourthly, advocate of plaintiffs during the course of arguments filed (2001) 9 Supreme Court Cases 742 and (2002)1 Supreme Court Cases 253. These cases are not applicable as I do not think that any wrong statement has been intentionally made by DW1.
6. In view of above, the application of plaintiffs u/s.340 Cr.P.C. against Sh.R.M.Bhardwaj, Principal PGDAV College (Evening), Delhi for offences committed u/s.191 & 193 IPC is hereby dismissed.
7. Put up for final arguments on 29.05.2008.
Announced in open Court DAYA PRAKASH
today on dated 17.04.2008 ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
DELHI
6/6