Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: criminal procedure code 340 in M/S. Nulon India Ltd. & Ors vs State & Anr on 27 June, 2025Matching Fragments
1. Appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as „Cr.P.C‟) has been filed on behalf of the Appellants against the impugned Order dated 16.01.2021 of learned ADJ- New Delhi, who had taken cognizance under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the Objector Company/Appellant No. 1 (M/s Nulon India Ltd.), for the offence under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as „IPC') and has directed a Complaint to be filed before the learned CMM, New Delhi.
9. The Reply was duly filed on behalf of the Appellant No.1 and by Mr. G.P. Chobey, A.R of Appellant No. 1 Company, asserting that they have not committed any offence under Section 209 IPC.
10. Learned ADJ vide Order dated 16.01.2021 held the Directors and Mr. G.P. Chobey/AR of the Appellant Company to be "in the habit of filing false applications, suits and objection without having any genuine claim over the Suit Property." It was concluded that it was a fit case to file a Complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the Objector Company, its Directors, namely, Mr. M.P. Golyan, Mr. K.K. Golyan, Ms. Smiti Golyan, Mr. G.P. Chobey, AR, for the offence under Section 209/34 IPC and a separate Complaint was directed to be filed before the learned CMM, South East.
11. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 16.01.2021, present Appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C., has been filed by the Appellants.
12. The main ground taken to challenge the impugned the Order is that it is against the facts of the case and provisions of law in so much as no offence under Section 209 IPC made out and there are no cogent grounds for initiating the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
51. The discretionary power under Section 340 Cr.P.C. should not be exercised mechanically, but must be tempered by considerations of fairness. In the present case, since the Appellant has already been penalised under Contempt of Courts Act and the unconditional apology of the Directors has already been accepted. Further, the Respondents have been duly compensated for the long litigation and denial of possession, by imposition of Costs. To penalize the Appellants again for the same offences by initiating the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 209 IPC, is neither in the interest of justice nor it further the administration of justice.