Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

) Sh. Pradeep Bajaj vs ) Smt. Jasvinder Kaur on 22 October, 2021

RCA No. 46/18                                          Page 1 of 11

      IN THE COURT OF DR. JAGMINDER SINGH
             ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE:03:
 SOUTH WEST DISTRICT: DWARKA COURTS:NEW DELHI

                           RCA No. 46/18
                     CNR No. DLSW01-011007-2018

In the matter of :
1)    Sh. Pradeep Bajaj,
      S/o Sh. S.L. Bajaj,
      Prop. M/s Print Wizards,
      A-45, Ground Floor,
      Naraina Industrial Area,
      Phase-II, New Delhi.
                                          ........Appellant

                                 Versus

1)    Smt. Jasvinder Kaur,
      W/o Sardar Mukhtiar Singh,

2)    Smt. Sukhvinder Kaur,
      W/o Sardar Balkar Singh,

3)    Sardar Balkar Singh,

      All R/o BL-60 Anand Vihar,
      Jail Road, New Delhi.

                                          ......Respondents

Date of institution of the appeal     :   28.05.2018
Final Arguments Heard on              :   22.10.2021
Date of Order                         :   22.10.2021
FINAL DECISION                        :   DISMISSED


Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.
 RCA No. 46/18                                             Page 2 of 11

                     REGULAR CIVIL APPEAL

ORDER :

-

1. Vide this order, I shall decide the regular civil appeal which has been filed against the order dated 20.04.2018, passed by the Ld. SCJ, (South-West), Dwarka Courts, New Delhi in Misc. No. 55/2016, Old No.M22/2014 in Civil Suit No. 468/2012.

2. Brief facts of the case as mentioned by the appellant in the appeal are that the respondents had filed a civil suit against appellant for getting the part area of property bearing no. A-45, Phase- II, Naraina Industrial Area, New Delhi evicted from him. Respondents no.1 & 2 authorized Sh. Balkar Singh i.e. Respondent no.3 to depose on behalf of plaintiff during examination. During cross-examination, respondent no.3 has falsely deposed before the Court and knowingly & willfully gave false testimony and committed perjury.

3. During cross-examination, respondent no.3 falsely deposed that he had neither executed any rent agreement with Sunil Garg nor he had obtained electricity connection from NDPL as a tenant. He had further deliberately and falsely stated that he do not Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.

know that the suit property is leasehold property of DDA. He had also falsely stated that he cannot say whether the lease deed of the suit property have been cancelled or whether this property cannot be sold as per Class-III & Class-V of the lease deed or that he cannot say whether Sangeeta Garg, Ankit & Sunil Garg from whom he purchased the property have filed a writ petition before Hon'ble High Court of restoration of lease deed. However, respondent no.3 was well aware of these facts but he had falsely shown his ignorance towards these facts.

4. It is further mentioned that the respondent no.3 had filed different agreement to sell having different figures in different cases and he had deliberately deposed falsely before the Court. Therefore, he had committed forgery with the Court of Law and is liable to be punished for that. The appellant had filed application u/O 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondents but same was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide impugned order. Hence, present appeal has been filed on the following grounds:-

i) That the Ld. Trial Court had not applied judicial mind while dismissing the application, Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.

ii) That the respondents have obtained the judgment and decree in their favor through mala-fide intention and false statement on oath given by respondent no.3,

iii) That the Ld. Trial Court had wrongly drawn inference without any material that the appellant seems more likely an opportunity to satisfy personal vendetta than a statement which tends to impede and impair the normal flow of course of justice. The order passed by Ld. Trial Court is based on contradictions and presumptions without any factual or legal ground,

iv) That the main suit was decided in two years, whereas the application is question was disposed after more than 5 years, and

v) That the Ld. Trial Court had not considered case laws filed by appellant in support of his case and further mentioned that appeal is under the limitation.

5. It has been further prayed that the impugned order dated 20.04.2018 may be set aside and respondent no.3 may be tried and punished for committing perjury with the court.

6. Ld. Counsel for appellant argued at length and submitted Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.

that the respondent no.3 had deliberately given false evidence before the Court despite the fact that he was having knowledge of the due fact. The respondent no.3 had also concealed several facts from the court despite the fact that he was having full knowledge of those facts asked from him during evidence. The respondent no.3 had committed a very serious offence of contempt of the Court and perjury with mala- fide intention. Only because of false evidence given by respondent no.3 before the Court, respondents had succeeded in getting judgment & decree in their favor by committing fraud with the Court. The respondent no.3 is accordingly liable to be punished for the offence of perjury and impugned order may be set aside. Ld. Counsel for appellant had also referred the case laws in his favor i.e. Dhananjay Sharma Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Writ Petn.(Criminal) No.15 of 1994 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; Zahira Habibullah Sheikh & Anr. Vs. State of Gujrat & Ors. Criminal Misc. Petition Nos. 6658- 6661 of 2004 in Criminal Appeal Nos.446-449 of 2004 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; Afzal and Another Vs. State of Haryana and Others Writ Petn. (Cri.) Nos. 356-57 of 1993 of Hon'ble Supreme Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.

Court of India and New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Prominent Hotels Limited RFA 78/2014 & CM Nos. 4137/2014 & 15024 of 2014 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.

7. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for respondents argued that the appellant has filed the appeal on frivolous grounds. The respondents had not given any false evidence but the appellant had deliberately twisted the facts stated by respondent no.3 during his examination. Ld. Trial Court had passed the impugned order while dismissing the application of the appellant u/s 340 Cr.P.C., on the basis of actual facts and after discussing all the relevant material on record. The impugned order is a reasoned order and has been passed after application of the proper judicial mind. The appeal filed by appellant is without any merit and same is liable to be dismissed. Ld. Counsel for respondent had also referred the case laws in his favor i.e. Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. SC: 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 178:2005(1) Apex Criminal 581:2005(3) JT 195 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India; YU Televentures Private Limited Vs. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Publ), (Delhi) (DB): 2016(66) PTC Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.

299 : 2016(156) DRJ 284 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court; Gulshan Sethi Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (Delhi): 2015(8) AD (Delhi) 109 : 2015 (222) DLT 524 of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; Jagjit Kaur Vs. Harjeet Singh (Lt. Col.) (Delhi) : 200(1) HLR 273 : 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 747 of Hon'ble Delhi High Court and Mangat Singh Vs. Rakha Singh, (Punjab and Haryana) 1995(3) RCR(Criminal) 312 :

1995(2) AICLR 699 of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.

8. I have considered the submissions of both parties and have gone through the record as well as relevant case laws cited by both parties. Perusal of Trial Court record reveals that the appellant had filed an application against the respondent for committing perjury and giving false statement, before the Ld. Trial Court on 07.06.2014 and reply of the same has been filed by the respondent on 09.09.2015.

9. After hearing arguments of both parties on different dates, the application was dismissed by the Ld. Trial Court vide order dated 20.04.2018.

10. The applicant/appellant had filed the application in question for initiating the proceedings against the respondent for Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.

committing perjury and giving false statement before the Court u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Section 340 Cr.P.C. reads as under:-

"Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. -(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub- section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such court may after such perliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, sent the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors. RCA No. 46/18 Page 9 of 11

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

(2) ............................."

11. Perusal of aforementioned provision reveals that it is having wording as, "... any court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence...........". The Court where such application is moved, then he may make preliminary enquiry or make a complaint after satisfying itself that initiation of such proceedings is expedient in the interest of justice. The provision is having the word 'May' which shows that it is not a mandatory provision. Therefore, it is not mandatory for all the Courts to initiate proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. or to make complaint u/s 195 Cr.P.C. in each and every case where such application is moved before the Court. It has also been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. Vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., in Crl. Appeal No.402 of 2005, that initiation of proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. & 195 Cr.P.C. is not mandatory in all cases.

12. This Court is not going into merits or de-merits of the Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.

case between both parties but there is only a limited question that whether the Ld. Trial Court had dismissed the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. moved by appellant rightly or it should have initiated the proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondent. It has been rightly observed by the Ld. Trial Court in para no.12 of the impugned order that the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. needs to be resorted to with care and due consideration only in cases where it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute the parties and cannot be resorted to likely on the mere allegations as the law under Section 340 Cr.P.C. does not say that every false statement before the Court comes under its purview.

13. Under the scheme of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 104 prescribes the orders from which appeal lies. Present appeal does not come under the scope of Section 104 C.P.C. Further order XLIII Rule 1 clarify that where an appeal shall lie from the orders under the provision of Section 104 C.P.C. This provision specifically mentioned from Order XLIII Rule 1 (a) to (w) about the orders against which an appeal will lie. As per this provision of the Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.

C.P.C., present appeal before this Court from the order upon an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

14. In view of the aforementioned discussion, Court finds that filed by the appellant against the impugned order dated 20.04.2018 is without any merit and appeal stands dismissed.

15. Appeal file be consigned to record room. Copy of this order along with TCR be sent back to the concerned court.

Announced in the open court           (Dr. Jagminder Singh)
On 22.10.2021                         ADJ-03/South West
                                      Dwarka / New Delhi

Note: This judgment is having Eleven (11) pages and each page is bearing my signatures.

(Dr. Jagminder Singh) ADJ-03/South West Dwarka / New Delhi Pradeep Bajaj Vs. Jasvinder Kaur & Ors.