Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Falsehood in Jai Parkash vs . Mcd And Anr. on 1 August, 2013Matching Fragments
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi quoted the following observations Suit no. 225/08/07 Jai Parkash Vs. MCD and Anr. 17/26 from the case of Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114:
"The materialism has overÂshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi noted:
"If there is falsehood in the pleadings (plaint, written statement or replication), the task of the Court is also multiplied and a lis that could be decided in a short time, then takes several years. It is the legal duty of every party to state in the pleadings the true facts and if they do not, they must suffer the consequences and the Court should not hold back from taking action.
A similar sentiment had been expressed by the Karnataka High Court in A. Hiriyanna Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 1998 Cri.L.J. 4756:
The Court ordered the Registrar of this court to make a complaint in writing against Mr. Rajender Jain, for having committed offences under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code to the Magistrate having jurisdiction. If this Court were to go by a general impression, the position has not improved but only worsened. It is time to take appropriate action so that parties, when they file their pleadings, do so with a sense of responsibility and if averments therein, or any evidence in support, is found to be false, the wrongdoer is not able to escape the punishment prescribed by law. xxxxxx In fact, restitution, which includes compensation, and levy of costs, is not sufficient where there is, in the pleadings before the Court, falsehood, concealment or reliance upon forged documents. There it also calls for triggering into motion the penal laws, i.e., making of a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The more important part is of punishment to prevent, in the first instance, litigants from making false averments before a court of law. While the punishment prescribed by law is deterrent, the probability of prosecution, and thereafter conviction, should also be sufficient to deter such Suit no. 225/08/07 Jai Parkash Vs. MCD and Anr. 21/26 conduct. A party, whether he is a petitioner or a respondent, or a witness, has to respect the solemnity of the proceedings in the court and he cannot play with the courts and pollute the stream of justice. It is cases like this, with false claims (or false defences) which load the courts, cause delays, consume judicial time and bring a bad name to the judicial system. This case is a sample where the facts are glaring. Even if they were not so glaring, once falsehood is apparent, to not take action would be improper.
30. It is not necessary for every case where contradictions are found to be referred for enquiry. Hence, it must be assessed as to whether the present case is fit for invoking Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure. A finding needs to be recorded whether the statements of the defendants amount to a deliberate and calculated attempt to mislead and to suppress the truth, so as to warrant an enquiry under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure. A preliminary enquiry is therefore required to be conducted, as also approved of in the case of Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253. This is all the more imperative since the defendant no.2 has not been granted an opportunity to respond to the imputation of falsehood as the defendant no.2 is not a respondent to the application filed Suit no. 225/08/07 Jai Parkash Vs. MCD and Anr. 25/26 by the plaintiff.