Delhi District Court
Krishna Kant Sharma vs Shachi Sharma on 29 August, 2025
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI PUNEET PAHWA
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL JUDGE NDPS)
NORTH EAST DISTRICT KARKARDOOMA COURTS
DELHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 201/2024
CNR NO. DLNE01-003881-2024
KRISHNA KANT SHARMA
S/o Sh. M. J. Sharma
R/o 16/A-1,
Hindustan Times Apartments,
Mayur Vihar, Phase-I,
Delhi-110091
........ Appellant
Vs.
1. SHACHI SHARMA
D/o. Late Chandra Prakash Sharma
2. PRABHA SHARMA
W/o. Late Chandra Prakash Sharma
Both R/o. B-236, Yamuna Vihar,
Delhi-110053.
3. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI
Through SHO PS Bhajanpura, Delhi
.......Respondents
Date of Institution of Appeal : 23.12.2024
Date of Completion of Arguments : 14.08.2025
Date of Order : 29.08.2025
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 24.09.2024, passed by the court of Sh. Pankaj Rai, Ld. JMFC-01, North-East District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, passed in Misc. Crl. No. 1/2023, vide which, the said court was pleased to dismiss the complaint Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:30 +0530 2 u/s. 340 read with Sec. 195 CrPC filed by the complainant/appellant herein.
2. Briefly stating, as alleged, the complainant (appellant herein) had filed various complaints against the accused persons (respondents herein) namely Shachi Sharma and Prabha Sharma for repeated acts of unauthorized access, theft and tampering of the judicial records and based on the said complaints, a fact finding inquiry was ordered to be conducted and at the conclusion of the said inquiry, vide order dated 18.07.2022, it was found that several illegal acts were committed by the respondents and conclusively the culpability of the respondents was established, but no action was taken against the respondents.
3. Aggrieved by the inaction against the respondents, the appellant filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and vide it's order dated 26.05.2023, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had taken cognizance and issued notice to the respondent namely Shachi Sharma.
4. It has been further alleged that based on order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the court of Ms. Aditi Garg, Ld. MM/NE/KKD Courts, Delhi, an FIR No. 0193/2018 u/s. 420/468/471/34 IPC was registered at PS Bhajanpura on 13.04.2018 against both the respondents, however, both the respondents were absconding.
5. It is alleged that the Ld. Trial Court was in Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:32 +0530 3 possession of all the relevant evidence against the respondents. Despite that, vide it's order dated 22.07.2023, the Ld. Trial Court had come to the conclusion that the application filed by the appellant was neither supported with any affidavit, nor any complaint u/s. 154(1) & 154(3) CrPC was filed before the concerned SHO/DCP. Thereafter, the appellant had filed an application u/s. 340 CrCP before the Ld. Trial Court, but, vide order dated 24.09.2024, it was dismissed without following due process of law.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 24.09.2024, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
7. The notices were issued to the respondents and the record of the Trial Court was requisitioned. Both the respondents had appeared with their counsel. They had also filed reply to the present appeal.
8. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has filed the written arguments alongwith the judgment in case, Association of Victims of the Uphaar..... Vs. Sushil Ansal & Ors. dated 05.05.2006. Ld. Counsel for the respondent has also filed the written arguments.
9. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record including written submissions filed on behalf of both the parties.
10. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same is Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:25 +0530 4 against facts, records and circumstances of the case and the same is based upon conjectures and Surmises and submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that all the ingredients of section 340 Cr.P.C. are made out and it is a clear-cut case where the Ld. Trial Court must have ordered appropriate action as per law against the respondents.
11. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the appellant has filed various complaints against the respondents regarding unauthorized access, theft and tempering of judicial records and based on the said complaints, a fact finding enquiry was conducted by the Ld. Trial Court and also submitted that the Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the court, at the conclusion of the enquiry vide its order dated 18.07.2022, had found several illegal acts committed by the respondents and the said illegal acts make out a clear cut case of 340 Cr.P.C and the said fact finding enquiry conclusively established the culpability of respondents and the said fact was completely ignored by Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order.
12. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court also failed to appreciate that the appellant had filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 26.05.2023 had taken cognizance of the writ petition filed by the appellant and had issued notice to Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:29 +0530 5 the respondent and since the Ld. Trial Court was in complete possession of all the evidence against the respondents and has already established their culpability, vide it's fact finding enquiry, it was incumbent upon the court to take action against the respondents and this fact was also completely ignored by Ld. Trial Court.
13. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that in the fact finding enquiry, clear evidences have already come against the accused persons for their wrongs committed with the judicial records, but, the Ld. Trial Court wrongly held that the fact finding enquiry was not concerned with the present respondents and it was the act of the court official only, but, the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the beneficiary of the said illegal acts were the respondents and every illegal act was committed in consonance and connivance with the respondents and on their instructions only.
14. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court wrongly held that there are no allegations against the respondents for the commission of any offence of false evidence punishable under section 193 to 196 CrPC; that there is no criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of any of the above offences and that the complainant has miserably failed to show even prima facie the ingredients of commission of any of offences of IPC as mentioned in Section 195(1) (b) of CrPC by the respondents and Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:27 +0530 6 submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that several illegal incidents have been enumerated in the application and various complaints were filed by the appellant, which clearly make out a case under section 340 CrPC and the said incidents that have not been appreciated by the Ld. Trial Court.
15. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that the accused persons were not having any lawful authority and power to have certified record and the accused persons dishonestly, fraudulently and maliciously and with fraudulent intention have concealed the material facts at the time of making the application for obtaining the certified copy to Ld. Trial Court, however, the respondent was not having any lawful authority and in this manner, the respondents played a fraud in a well-planned manner and conspired in a calculated manner to have the records of the Ld. Trial Court illegally & unlawfully by following unlawful means and by giving false statement to influence the witnesses and manipulate the records of the case.
16. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submitted that the Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate and ignored the order dated 05.09.2024 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, which 'clearly illustrates and clarifies the submissions made by the Appellant to make out his case under section 340 CrPC' and also ignored the various judgments passed by various higher courts, which clearly Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:27 +0530 7 illustrate that these incidents clearly make out a case under section 340 CrPC and submitted that the Ld. Trial Court has not applied judicial mind in deciding the application of the appellant and also all settled principles of law and over sighted the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and various Hon'ble High Courts; hence the impugned order suffers from irregularities and is liable to be set aside, as such the respondents no. 1, 2 and their associates made a complete mockery of the judicial system affecting the administration of justice with an intent to perverse the course of justice, hampering the judicial proceedings and causing interruption in judicial proceedings knowingly, intentionally and deliberately to pollute the judicial proceedings, which comes in purview of not only contempt of Court proceedings, but also hampers the majesty of law which can't be tolerated in any civilized society and prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.09.2024.
17. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for both the respondents submitted that the grounds mentioned in the present appeal are wrong, false and bogus and hence denied in it's entirety and submitted that the ingredients of Sec. 340 CrPC are not made out against the respondents, hence, the Ld. Trial Court rightly dismissed the complaint and also denied any wrong doing on the part of the respondents or their counsel and submitted that it is mere assumption and presumption of the appellant.
Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:26 +0530 8
18. Ld. Counsel for both the respondents further denied that respondents and their counsel repeatedly accessed the records of the case illegally and obtained copies of documents/orders and denied that in the present case, the respondents cannot be said to be party in the proceedings u/s. 156(3) CrPC and that an unauthorized inspection of the file was done by the respondents and submitted that there is no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Ld. Trial Court. The order dated 24.09.2024 was duly passed by the Ld. Trial Court, after going through the entire record and there is no ground to interfere with the impugned order.
19. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the parties and perused the record.
20. Bare perusal of the record of the Ld. Trial Court record shows that vide impugned order, the Ld. Trial Court dismissed the application u/s. 340 CrPC read with Sec. 195 CrPC filed by the complainant seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused persons /respondents, as the same was without any merit. The relevant part of the impugned order is reproduced herein below:-
"The upshot of the above discussion is that the complainant has miserably failed to show even prima facie the ingredients of commission of any of offences of IPC as mentioned in the Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., by the respondents in or in relation to a proceeding in this Court or in respect of any document produced or Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:28 +0530 9 given evidence in a proceeding in this Court. The ingredients of alleged offences have not been made out by the complainant. Consequently, the provision of section 340 Cr.P.C. are not applicable in this case and hence, no case is made for initiating proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. read with section 195 Cr.P.C. against respondents.
Accordingly, the present application is without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Other pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of."
21. Before coming to the above conclusion, the Ld. Trial Court had thoroughly considered all the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPC on the basis of which, a complaint u/s. 340 CrPC can be filed.
22. It is now well settled that Provisions of section 195 of the Code are mandatory and non-compliance of it would vitiate the prosecution and all other consequential orders. Section 340 CrPC prescribed the procedure as to how a complaint may be preferred under section 195 CrPC, while under section 195 CrPC, it is open to the court before which the offence was committed to prefer a complaint for the prosecution of the offender. Provisions under section 195 CrPC are mandatory and no court can take cognizance of offences referred to therein. Clubbing of other cognizable offences would not be permissible to evade the provisions of section 195 of the Code. Section 195(3) provides a pre-condition for taking cognizance of offence under section 193 of the Code. Reliance can be placed upon C. Muniappan v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2010 SC Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:33 +0530 10 3718: M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 168; Barappa v. State of Karnataka, (1997) 2 Crimes 575 (Kant); Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1236.
23. The present appeal has been filed u/s. 341 CrPC against the order of Ld. Trial Court rejecting an application of the appellant filed u/s. 340 CrPC. So far as the law regarding complaint u/s. 340 CrPC and appeal u/s. 341 CrPC are concerned, the same is now well settled.
24. In Santokh Singh v Izhar Hussain (1973)2 SCC 406:
1973 SCC (Ori) 828, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the administration of justice and not to gratify the 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- Narendra Kumar v State of Bihar (2019)2 SCC (Cri) 221: (2019)3 SCC 318.
25. Bar under section 195(1)(b)(ii), when attracted. -
Setting at rest all controversies the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v Meenakshi Marwah (2005)4 Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:31 +0530 11 SCC 370: 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101 has laid down that sec. 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC 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.
26. It is now well settled that prosecution u/s. 340 CrPC should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and there must be prima facie case of deliberate, falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge.
27. The hub of the provision is formation of an opinion by the Court (before which proceedings were to be held) that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence which appears to have been committed. In order to form such an opinion the court is empowered to hold a preliminary inquiry. It is not peremptory that such preliminary inquiry should be held. Even when the court forms an opinion it is not mandatory that the court should make a complaint. However, once the court decides to make a complaint it should make a finding to the effect that on the fact situation it is expedient in the interest of justice that the offence should further be probed into. [Reliance can be placed upon - Pritish v State (2002)1 SCC 253 (para 9)].
28. In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:28 +0530 12 (2005) 4 SCC 370 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1101, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
"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 interests 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 enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry 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 document 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."
29. The averments made in the present appeal are to be considered in terms of the above-mentioned settled law. As per the present appeal, the grievance of the appellant is mainly to the effect that he had filed an application u/s. 156(3) CrPC before the Ld. JMFC and even when, no notice of the application was issued to the respondents, the Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:32 +0530 13 respondents had got done the inspection of the judicial record unauthorizedly through their counsel and they had also obtained the certified copy of the record without any authority and against the rules prescribed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. Further, an enquiry was conducted as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by the Ld. JMFC and in that fact finding inquiry, the Ld. JMFC had concluded that inspection was done unauthorizedly and further the vakalatnama filed on record on behalf of the respondents was also found misplaced, which amounts to tempering with the judicial record and by the said act, the respondents have committed the offences punishable u/s. 175/177/182/187/188/199/200/209 IPC and they have also committed the offence of forgery. Accordingly, the appellant had moved an application u/s. 340 CrPC to take appropriate action against the respondents.
30. It is alleged that despite the specific allegations against the respondents and despite having sufficient material on record, the Ld. JMFC had dismissed the application, vide order dated 24.09.2024 and since, the prima facie involvement of the respondents in commission of the abovesaid offences is made out, which fact has been prima facie established, even during the fact finding enquiry conducted by the Ld. JMFC, it was incumbent upon the Ld. JMFC to direct appropriate enquiry u/s. 340 CrPC.
31. On the other hand, it has been argued by the Ld. Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:30 +0530 14 Counsel for the respondents that no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out, as all the averments made by the appellant in the present appeal have already been considered by the Ld. JMFC and rejected the same by passing the well reasoned and detailed order and since, none of the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPC is attracted in the present case, no cause of action to initiate the proceedings u/s. 340 CrPC is made out and it has been prayed that the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
32. It is not in dispute that on the basis of the complaints made by the appellant, one fact finding inquiry was initiated against the concerned official of the Court, where the case was pending and in the said fact finding inquiry, it was concluded by the Ld. Inquiry Officer that inspection of the file was done on 01.11.2018 & 25.01.2019 on behalf of the respondent party, who were yet to be summoned, however, there was no application on record for inspection done on 01.11.2018. Further, with respect to the inspection done on 25.01.2019, while an application for inspection is on record, the said application was not supported with the vakalatnama. The vakalatana kept on record on behalf of the respondent was dated 05.12.2019. It was concluded that both the inspections were conducted without their being any vakalatnama on record on behalf of the party who had conducted the inspection.
33. With respect to the CA application dated 01.09.2016, it was observed in the said fact finding inquiry Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:28 +0530 15 that file was sent by the then Ahlmad and same was processed by the then Examiner in CA Branch. However, there was no vakalatnama supported with the CA application for the said date. The opposite parties were yet to be summoned. With respect to the unauthorized CA being given on 09.12.2019, Chhittha was prepared and sent by the then Ahlmad. The said application was supported by vakalatnama dated 05.12.2019. However, the opposite party was yet to be summoned.
34. Thus, in the fact finding inquiry, it was decided by the Inquiry Officer that the inspection was done and CA was filed unauthorizedly by the respondent when the respondent was yet to be summoned. Now, it is to be seen, whether the said act on the part of the respondent attracted any of the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPC or not. It is now well settled that before an inquiry u/s. 340 CrPC is to be initiated, section 195 CrPC is mandatory and section 340 CrPC can be initiated only when any of the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPC has been committed with respect to any judicial record or regarding the document given in evidence.
35. It has been argued by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant that since, the vakalatnama filed on behalf of the respondent was conspicuously removed from the judicial record, it amounts to tampering with the evidence and hampering with the judicial process and therefore, Sec. 195 CrPC is attracted in the present case.
Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:31 +0530 16
36. It is not in dispute that cause of action for conducting a fact finding inquiry against a government official is entirely different from the cause of action for initiation of the proceedings u/s. 340 CrPC, merely because, in the fact finding inquiry, the concerned Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that there was some misconduct on the part of the government official will not per se imply that an offence under any of the sections mentioned under Sec. 195 CrPC has also been made out.
37. To attract Sec. 340 CrPC, it is to be separately seen whether any of the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPC is made out or not. In the impugned order, the Ld. JMFC has very categorically referred to all the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPC and after detailed discussion, Ld. JMFC had come to the conclusion that none of the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPC is made out. Therefore, there was no cause of action to proceed further u/s. 340 CrPC.
38. After going through the record, this court also agrees with the conclusion arrived at by the Ld. JMFC and even this court is satisfied that none of the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPC is attracted in the present case. The argument that unauthorized inspection/unauthorized obtaining of the certified copy amounts to the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPc is misplaced and this court does not find any force in the said argument. The inspection application, CA application and for that matter, vakalatnama may fall within the category of 'document', Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.Digitally signed by PUNEET
PUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:26 +0530 17 but by no stretch of imagination, they can be termed as a 'documentary evidence', as defined under the Evidence Act. It is settled law that a documentary evidence is the evidence which is filed in the form of a document to prove the fact in issue or a relevant fact under consideration before the concerned court.
39. Admittedly, the inspection application, CA application and the vakalatnama were not filed to prove any fact in issue or relevant fact under consideration, therefore, they do not file within the category of documentary evidence, so far as the application u/s. 156(3) CrPC filed by the appellant was concerned.
40. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this court, unauthorized inspection, unauthorized obtaining of CA, filing / misplacing of the vakalatnama may amount to official misconduct on the part of the concerned government official for the purpose of which necessary departmental inquiry may be conducted, but, it may not amount to commission of any of the offences mentioned u/s. 195 CrPC. Sec. 195 CrPC is consisting of two parts -
clause (a) of sub section (i) talks about the offences punishable u/e. 172 to 188 IPC or the abetment or attempt to commit such offence or criminal conspiracy to commit such offence. Clause (b) of sub section (i) talks about the offences punishable u/s. 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 228, 463, 471, 475, 476 IPC or criminal conspiracy or attempt or the abetment to commit any of such offences.
Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:29 +0530 18
41. After going through the entire record and hearing the detailed arguments advanced by both the parties and also after perusing the written arguments filed by both the parties, this court has no hesitation in holding that even though the fact finding inquiry was conducted against the concerned government official, but, no cause of action was made out to initiate any action u/s. 340 CrPC against the respondents and the application was rightly dismissed by the Ld. JMFC. So far as the judgment 'Association of Victims of the Uphaar..... Vs. Sushil Ansal & Ors.' relied upon by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant is concerned, there is no dispute about the law laid down in the said judgment, but, the same is not applicable in the present case. Admittedly, in that case, it came to the notice that several documents which were seized by the investigating agency during the course of investigation and which were filed alongwith the chargesheet and which formed part of the judicial record were missing from the record of the case, while some other documents were tampered with.
Thus, in that case, the tampering was with respect to the documents, which were filed as evidence in that case, were found missing and thus, Hon'ble High Court had directed to take appropriate action in that case.
42. In the present case, as already observed above, the inspection application, CA application and vakalatnama do not amount to documentary evidence as such and therefore, no action was warranted u/s. 340 CrPC.
Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:33 +0530 19
43. In view of the above discussions, this court does not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned dated 24.09.2024, which may require any interference therein. Therefore, the impugned order under appeal passed by the Ld. Trial Court is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant/complainant is hereby dismissed, being devoid of merits.
44. The appeal file be consigned to Record Room, after due compliance.
45. Record of Ld. Trial Court is also ordered to be returned with attested copy of this judgment.
46. Copy of this judgment be also given dasti to both the parties.
Announced in the open court on 29th day of August 2025 (PUNEET PAHWA) Addl. Sessions Judge/Special Judge (NDPS) North-East District Karkardooma Courts, Delhi Criminal Appeal No. 201/2024 Krishna Kant Sharma Vs. Shachi Sharma & Ors.
Digitally signed by PUNEETPUNEET PAHWA PAHWA Date:
2025.08.29 15:42:31 +0530