Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

16. It is respectfully submitted that further investigation in the cases registered are being carried out by the State CID.” SUMMATION OF THE STANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS :

25. Thus, if we have to sum up the stance of the respondents, then the same is that the entire case put up by the writ petitioners portraying the incidents of 17th September 2009 and 1st October 2009 respectively as a brutal massacre by the members of the different Police and Paramilitary Forces is palpably false. All the averments made in the memorandum of the writ petition are ex facie false and fabricated. An attempt has been made to mislead this Court. False allegations have been levelled on the police and the paramilitary forces with a mala fide intention to change the narrative of the incidents, i.e. to portray the dreaded Left Wing Extremists (Naxals), who were waging an armed rebellion against the security forces of the country and threatening the sovereignty and integrity of the country, as innocent tribal victims being massacred by the security forces.

33. Mr. Mehta would submit that if such palpably false and motivated writ petition at the instance of an NGO is entertained by this Court, then the same may lead to disastrous results as the very morale of the different police and paramilitary forces fighting against the Naxals would be shaken.

34. Mr. Mehta, in the course of his submissions, highlighted a very shocking picture as to how the Naxalites, over a period of time, have brutally killed the members of the police forces.

5. No Affidavit of authorisation of Petitioners No. 2 to It is pertinent to note that the present petition has been filed by the Petitioner No. 1 (Himanshu Kumar) on behalf of Petitioner No. 2 to 13. However, there is  no affidavit on record whereby Petitioners No. 2 to 13 have authorised Petitioner No. 1.”

42. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Sodhi prays that there being no merit in the present writ petition, the same may be rejected with exemplary costs and appropriate actions against each of the writ petitioners for misleading the Court and fabricating false evidence.

(c) And direct appropriate action against the Petitioners and other person/s responsible for the aforesaid acts of perjury;

(d) Pass any other just and reasonable orders to meet the ends of justice.”

68. We have closely looked into the averments made in the Interlocutory Application.

69. Mr. Tushar Mehta, the learned Solicitor General has pressed this application very hard.

70. Although no particular nomenclature has been given to this application, yet it is apparent that the same is under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the CrPC”) read with Section 195 of the CrPC. The Union of India wants this Court to initiate appropriate proceedings against the writ petitioners for the offence of perjury punishable under Section 193 of the IPC. The Union of India vehemently asserts that the writ petitioners are guilty of levelling false charges of various offences and could be said to have fabricated evidence before this Court in a judicial proceedings. The Union of India asserts that the writ petitioner no.1 has affirmed the false averments made in the writ petition on oath. He could be said to have made a false affidavit. The making of false affidavit and giving false evidence comes within the purview of Section 191 of the IPC.