Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 16, Cited by 0]

Delhi District Court

Smt. Ravi Kanojia vs Sh. Archana Kanojia ....... ... on 17 September, 2012

Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006                                                    Page 1 of 11



  IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI  SHARMA M.M(MAHILA COURT)
                WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.


                                                                                CC No. 131/06
                                                   Unique ID No.             02401R1323592006


Smt. Ravi Kanojia                                                 ........        Applicant.  


                                     VERSUS

Sh. Archana Kanojia                                                 .......          Non­applicant.

17.09.2012.

ORDER

1. Vide this order I shall dispose off an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C and u/s 2, 10 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act filed by the applicant Ravi Kanojia against non­applicant Archana Kanojia.

2. It is contended in the application that the non­applicant had deliberately and wilfully made various false statements in her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C filed against the applicant herein on 29.06.2002. The falsity of the said allegations have clearly come on record on account of different statements and stands taken by the non­applicant in various litigations pending between the parties. The applicant has detailed the contradictions Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 2 of 11 in the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C filed by the non­applicant and various litigations in his application. These contradictions include the contradictions regarding the earnings and employment of and ownership of various movable and immovable properties by the non­applicant; the earnings and employment status of the non­applicant and the possession of the dowry and jewellery articles of the non­applicant. In order to highlight the contradictions, the averments made by non­applicant in her petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C regarding the above points have been contradicted with the averments made in her replication to the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C, complaint made by her before CAW Cell on 26.11.01 and the statements made by her in her applications u/s 24/26 HMA filed before Ld. HMA Court. The certified copies of all these litigations have been placed on record by the applicant.

3. Reply was filed by the non­applicant wherein the application has been preliminary objected to on the ground that it is a gross misuse of the process of law and has been filed merely to harass and harm the non­ applicant. It is also submitted that non­applicant has not committed any forgery nor has used any forged document in evidence nor she has taken any advantage of any document or statement nor made any wrong statement deliberately or wilfully before any Court. Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 3 of 11

4. The non­applicant in her reply has detailed various facts necessary for just disposal of the present application. It is submitted that the marriage between the applicant and non­applicant was solemnized on 22.1.99 and one girl child namely Sampan was born out of the wedlock on 4.4.00. A lot of money was spent by the parents of non­applicant on her marriage and sufficient articles were given to the applicant and his family members. Before marriage, applicant falsely represented to the parents of the non­applicant that he had completed his graduation and was pursuing MBA from IGNOU and was working with Eureka Forbes Ltd. After marriage non­applicant came to know about these mis­representations. The applicant and his family members also started taunting the non­ applicant for bringing insufficient dowry and she was pressurized to bring more and more articles and fulfill the unreasonable demands of the applicant and his family members. Even a complaint was lodged with CAW Cell on the basis of which FIR No. 137/02 P.S. Janakpuri u/s 498A/406 IPC has been registered against the applicant. It is also submitted that non­applicant was turned out of her matrimonial home on 22.09.00 along with her minor child. All her jewellery and istridhan articles were kept by the applicant and his family members. On 22.09.00 the non­applicant was beaten mercilessly by applicant. Some neighbours Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 4 of 11 called police. Applicant was taken into custody in a Kalandra u/s 107/151 Cr.P.C. The non­applicant was earlier working even prior to her marriage. However, due to the mis­conduct of the applicant, she had suffered severe depression.

5. It is submitted that keeping in view the back ground of the case the multiple litigations between the parties which have arisen out of the matrimonial dispute and also considering the fact that the non­applicant has not tendered any forged document in evidence, it is a not a fit case which falls within the definition of Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is not expedient in the interest of justice to proceed against a lady who had been under depression suffering from various ailments and trying to fight against the ill­treatment and cruelty given to her in her matrimonial home for any statement made in the petition and rejoinder on the wrong advice of a lawyer.

6. It is also submitted that the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C has already been dismissed in default and since no proceedings are pending before the Court, the application under disposal is not maintainable. No evidence has been led in petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. The non­applicant has unconditionally also apologized in her reply for the blunders which she had committed on the advice of her counsel, as she was under depression Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 5 of 11 and desperate to get maintenance for her minor child, whom she was not capable of maintaining solely by herself. It is also submitted that the present complaint u/s 340 Cr.P.C seems to be an act of revenge by applicant and allowing this application would amount to permitting the use of judicial process as an instrument of oppression and needless harassment.

7. On merits, it has been argued that the submissions made in the petition and rejoinder u/s 125 Cr.P.C by the non­applicant were on the basis of information given to her by the applicant himself during the subsistence of their marriage. As regards her own employment with Soni India, it is submitted that she has merely denied in her replication that she was working in Soni India as Front Executive as though she was employed with Soni India but not as a Front Executive. It is also submitted that she had left her job with Soni India somewhere in July 2000. Thereafter, she was not in regular employment. It was inadvertently mentioned in her petition that she had not been working as her employment with Seimens was initially on contract basis and was not permanent. She had even informed her counsel that she wanted maintenance for her child and not for herself.

8. It has been argued that keeping in view the principles of equality, natural Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 6 of 11 justice and the fact that mere variations in the stands which have ultimately not been proved, does not entitle the applicant for any relief u/s 340 Cr.P.C. With these directions the application has been controverted and it is prayed that same should be dismissed being meritless and having been filed with ulterior motives.

9. Arguments on the application have been heard and record has been carefully perused.

10.Ld. Counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in case Re. Suo motu proceedings against R. Karuppan, Advocate in writ petition (c) no. 77 of 2001 decided on 12.05.2001 wherein it has been held as under :

"Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The Courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any extraneous consideration. Justice dispensation system would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 7 of 11 dependent upon the statement of facts. If the result of the proceedings are to be respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in accordance with the truth. The purity of proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy".

11.Relying upon the said judgment it is argued that the mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with society unless the Courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of commission of offence under Chapter­11 of IPC.

12.Non­applicant, on the other hand, has relied upon the judgment of our own High Court in case titled as Jagjit Kaur Vs. Harjeet Singh cited as 2000 (I) AD (Delhi) 129 to stress upon the point that recourse u/s 340 Cr.P.C cannot be had by any party to serve his own end or to take his own revenge. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising its discretion and section 340 Cr.P.C and it should not be permitted to become a mean to reckvengeance.

Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 8 of 11

13.Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Santokh Singh Vs. Izhar Hussain cited as AIR 1973 SC 2190 wherein it has been held as under:

"Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstance, when it determines the question of expediency. The Court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution".

14. Reliance is also placed upon decision in the case of Jaswinder Singh Vs. Paramjit Kaur 1986 Crl. L.J. 1398 wherein it has been held:

"It is settled principle of law that courts never become tools at the hands of the parties to satisfy private vendetta or to take up cudgels on behalf of one party and punish the other. The primary object to take proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in instituting a complaint for giving false evidence, is to Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 9 of 11 curb the evil of perjury and to keep the flow of proceedings in courts unsullied and pure. It is only in a rare case, when the Court comes to the conclusion that if the complaint is filed conviction is more or less a certainty, that it chosses 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 this Court to enter into the fact and become a complainant at the behest of the husband­petitioner. Thus, I am of the considered view that it is not expedient to pursue the matter any further at the instance of the parties".

15.The judgments relied upon by both the parties have been carefully perused.

16.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 Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 10 of 11 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".

17. 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 a prima facie satisfaction on the part of the Court that such a proceeding should be initiated for the interest of justice".

18.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.

19. Perusal of the judgments relied upon by both the parties clearly shows that judgment as cited by Ld. Counsel for the non­applicant is more applicable to the facts of the present case as compared to the judgment relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the applicant. Although, it is true that no one can be permitted to take law for ride by making false and wrong statement made before the Court but the question whether any wrong statement made before the Court is sufficient and requires, in the interest Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia No. 131/06 Unique ID No. 02401R1323592006 Page 11 of 11 of justice, to be proceeded against u/s 340 Cr.P.C is a question which has to be diligently considered by the Court before proceeding further u/s 340 Cr.P.C. In the present case the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C has already been dismissed by the Court and no maintenance order has been passed in favour of the non­applicant. Thus the non­applicant has not obtained any illegal order in her favour and against the applicant on the basis of any false statement made by her. Still the applicant preferred to move an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C seeking directions for filing a criminal complaint against the non­applicant. In these circumstances, it seems that the object of filing the present application was basically to the seek revenge against the non­applicant who has been fighting various litigations against the applicant before various forums. Thus, I do not find any reason for proceeding further against the non­applicant or punishing her for the offence of perjury.

20.For the reasons given above and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not deem it expedient in the interest of justice to proceed further under section 340 Cr.P.C. The application of the applicant is accordingly, dismissed. 

Pronounced in the open                                   (Shivali Sharma)
court today i.e.17.09.2012                               MM/Mahila Court
                                                         West/Delhi

Smt. Ravi Kanojia Vs. Sh. Archana Kanojia                                               No. 131/06