Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. On 6th February, 2018, the Applicant, who is Respondent No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016, filed the above Civil Application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Applicant in his Application, after relying on the contents of the Application filed by the EOW (which Application is filed by the EOW after the filing of Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016 by the Respondents herein), has submitted that the Respondents have dishonestly and with mala fide intention made false and misleading submissions on oath, and that the Respondents have deliberately and dishonestly in their Civil Writ Petition No. 721 of 2016 concealed material facts and have made false statements, misrepresentations, thereby playing a fraud upon the Court by wrongful and illegal means, with the intention to obtain favourable orders. The Applicant has set out a Table under two columns. The first column is titled "False submissions in Writ Petition by the Applicant" and the second column is titled as "True facts". After setting out the said Table, the Applicant has submitted that the Respondents have made false allegations and submissions in Court proceedings and are therefore liable to be punished for having committed offences under Sections 199, 200, 463, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 474, 120 (B), 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

32. It is alleged by the Applicant that the Respondents have made false submission in paragraph 1 of the Writ Petition that, " Mr. Jagdishchandra Pande who was member of Respondent No. 2 Society being joint owner along with late Mr. Gulabchand Sarda in respect of plot No. 49, Laxmi Niwas, J.B. Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai-400 059, who had nominated them to receive his share and membership after his death". 32.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Respondents have suppressed the material fact that neither Jagdishchandra Pande nor Gulabchand Sarda were owners of Plot No. 49. In fact, Nandkishor Ghasiram Pande and Bapulal Balmukund Jhawar were the joint owners of the said Property and the said Property was registered in their names. 32.2 This submission of the Applicant is incorrect and cannot be accepted. The said "true facts" or "material facts" are repeatedly set out by the Applicant in his Application No. 1 of 2009 filed before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai and in the dispute filed by the Applicant and pending before the 4th Cooperative Court, Mumbai and also in the Application No. 1 of 2014 filed by him before the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, K/East Ward, Mumbai under Section 25A of the Act. All these proceedings and the orders passed therein are not only disclosed in the Writ Petition but copies of the same, as set out in detail in paragraph 30 of this Order, are annexed to the Writ Petition by the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) and forms part of the record and there is no suppression as alleged by the Applicant. Even otherwise, the orders which are impugned before the Writ Court are passed only on the basis that Mr.Jagdishchandra Pande and Mr.Gulabchand Sarda were mere nominee members and being nominee members were not entitled to further nominate any other member in respect of their shares and therefore after their demise their names cannot continue as member of the said property and ought to be deleted. Therefore, the scope of the Writ Petition is limited only to the extent of the issues raised therein which are also set out in paragraph 17 above, and the issue as to title i.e. who is the owner of the subject plot is not the subject matter of the Writ Petition. The charges impleaded by the EOW in the chargesheet also need to be proved in the Court of competent jurisdiction. It therefore cannot be held that the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) in view of the above quoted statement suppressed any facts or made false or incorrect statements on oath in order to mislead the Court or to obtain favourable orders.

34. The Applicant has also alleged that in para 2 (a) of the Writ Petition the Respondents have made a false submission that, "late Mr. Jagdishchandra Nandkishore Pande along with late Mr. Gulabchand Sarda became members of the Respondent No. 2 Society in 1994 in respect of plot no. 49".

34.1. In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that the Respondents have suppressed the material fact that his father Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda became nominee members of the Society based upon fabricated death certificate and false nomination in conspiracy with the Managing Committee Members of the Society and that he has filed a criminal FIR against them for fabricating death certificate, nomination forms, transfer forms, etc. 34.2. That late Jagdishchandra Pande along with late Gulabchand Sarda became members of Respondent No. 2 Society in 1994 is a fact. All the allegations qua the fabrication of documents as well as the FIR filed by the Applicant are found in great detail in the documents annexed to the Writ Petition by the Respondents. The Writ Petitioners (Respondents herein) have, therefore, placed all the facts including the allegations made by the Applicant and the orders passed by the authorities, before the Writ Court. In any event, as explained hereinabove, the issue involved in the Writ Petition is very limited and is confined to the questions of law raised by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition (reproduced in paragraph 17 hereinabove), it was not necessary for the Petitioners to set out the facts which, according to the Applicant, have been suppressed. In any event, the same have not been suppressed and the question therefore of the Respondents having suppressed any facts or having made false or incorrect statements on oath in order to mislead the Court or to obtain favourable orders is incorrect and cannot be accepted. Here, it would be very pertinent to refer to the observations made by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Mittal (supra), wherein the learned Judge when considering at length, the issue pertaining to false averments in pleadings, has succinctly stated that making false averments is an attempt at inviting the court into passing a wrong judgement and that is why it must be treated as an offence. This observation strengthens the view taken by me hereinabove, that the Petitioners in the Writ Petition have confined the scope of the Writ Petition filed by them to mere questions of law raised therein and reproduced in paragraph 17 hereinabove, and thus there is no scope to accept the argument of the Applicant herein that the Petitioners are making an attempt at inviting the court into passing a wrong judgement, more so when, as stated above, the Petitioners have annexed all the documents set out by me at length in paragraph 17 above.

39. It is alleged by the Applicant the Respondents herein (Petitioners therein) in paragraph 2 (d) of the Writ Petition have made a false submission that, ".... it is pertinent to note that with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives, none of the heirs/legal representatives of late Mr. Jagdishchandra Pande and Mr. Gulabchand Sarda were made party to the Application No. 1 of 2014, though they were necessary parties as their rights being heirs were to be affected."

39.1 In support of his above allegation, the Applicant has in the column captioned "True Facts" alleged that Jagdishchandra Pande and Gulabchand Sarda were nominee members, that too based on false and fabricated documents; the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a nominee is just a trustee till the heirs of the deceased members come on record. Therefore, the nominee cannot further nominate and the question of their rights being affected does not arise.