Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is an application filed by the defendant under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.) against the plaintiff Kuldeep Kapoor and his accomplices viz. Girdhari Lal, Ashok Kapoor and Ms. Priya Kapoor. This application has been filed in the above suit during its pendency. According to the defendant after putting his signatures on the agreement to sell, he had left the blanks unfilled in clauses 1 and 2 of the said agreement. In clause 4 of the said agreement, he had put signatures just above the said clause and this was done to validate a correction i.e addition of the letter `d' in the word `mature'. The two witnesses attested this document. According to the applicant, the copy of the receipt dated 20th October, 2004 on which the plaintiff has based his suit, is a forged document. Photo copy of the agreement as well as the original receipt had been placed on record as Annexures R-1 and R-2 respectively. The plaintiff and his accomplices not only tampered the receipt by erasing typed word `cash' and written the same in hand but also the typed figure of Rs. 30,000/- and added in hand a figure of Rs. 2 lacs. Thus according to the applicant, Kuldeep Kapoor, Girdhari Lal and Ashok Kapoor have fabricated, tampered and forged the document with an intention to use the same in Court as evidence or otherwise. It is also stated that the plaintiff and his witness Girdhari Lal have intentionally given their incorrect addresses before the Court on affidavit and have therefore made false statement before the Court during judicial proceedings. The agreement and receipt were in possession of the plaintiff and his accomplices, as such they are liable to be prosecuted under Sections 191, 192 of the Indian Penal Code and punishable under Sections 193, 196 and 200 of the Code for forgery of documents and the offences under Sections 463, 464 of the Indian Penal Code punishable under Section 465 of the Code and for the offences under Sections 469 and 470 of the Code punishable under Section 471 of the Code. On this premise, it is prayed that the Court may direct initiation of appropriate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the plaintiff and his accomplices as afore noticed.

The plaintiff insisted on stating incorrect facts before the Court and in fact misled the Court. Even in the plaint the plaintiff gave incorrect address and during his statement under Order 10 CPC failed to give any reason why he had given different addresses at different places. Not only this, the plaintiff also failed to file replication despite the fact that the written statement on behalf of the defendant was filed quite sometime back. Again a request was made which in the interest of justice was granted. In the order dated 27th September, 2005, the Court had clearly recorded that last opportunity is granted to the plaintiff to file replication. Despite order dated 27th September, 2005 no replication was filed. The order being pre-emptory the obvious result would have been to close the right of the plaintiff to file replication. However, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff raised certain serious controversies with regard to supply of documents. The Court while declining to comment on the said controversy, still granted another opportunity to the plaintiff to file replication.

16. The object of a penal provision is always and must be construed so as to suppress the mischief and advance the object which the Legislature had in view for the administration of justice.

17. The arguments raised on behalf of the non-applicants are without merits as the judgment on facts would not help the non-applicants. It is pertinent to notice here that there is a controversy as to when the documents were tampered or forged. As already indicated the original documents were not filed with the plaint but were produced in the court in furtherance to order of the court dated 2nd September, 2005. According to the applicant he had signed the receipt with typed figures of 'cash' and Rs. 30,000/-, but when the original was produced in Court, this was scored out and substituted by handwritten word 'cash' and Rs. 2 lacs. Similar is the plea taken by the applicant in relation to the agreement executed between the parties. As far as Mr. Kuldeep Kapoor is concerned, he has filed affidavits which to his knowledge were incorrect and had given the address where he was not living. He also gave different, incorrect or false addresses in different affidavits filed by him. In response to the question of the Court, in his statement recorded under Order 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he admitted that incorrect address was given. However, he refused to answer the question. Following extract from his statement recorded under Order 10 on 10th September, 2005 can be usefully noticed at this stage.

" was resident of D-614, C.R. Park on the date of signing of agreement. The property at D-614 is a four-storey property. We stayed in that property for 2 months from July, 2004 to October, 2004 We left this house on 27-28th October, 2004 I was living on the second floor. I had shifted to the house No. B-186 CR Park, New Delhi in October, 2004 where I am presently residing."

Question Why have you then given incorrect address in the plaint as A-558, Doubley storey, Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019.

Ans. The witness refuses to answer the question.