$~17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + TEST.CAS. 19/2004 SANJEEV KUMAR MITTAL ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Praveen Agrawal & Mr. D. Kumar, Advs. Versus THE STATE ..... Respondent Through: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW O R D E R % 23.03.2017 Crl.M.A. No.6721/2010 (under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.) 1. This petition seeking probate of a document claimed to be the validly executed last Will of Late Smt. Ram Pyari, wife of Late Sh. Shiv Kumar, resident of D-50, Block-II, EPRRR Co-operative House Building Society Ltd., Greater Kailash Enclave-II, New Delhi was dismissed for non- prosecution on 18th May, 2010; however this application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. filed by respondent no.2 Col. Dr. Kotu Kumar Phull remains for adjudication. 2. Vide judgment dated 18th November, 2010 on this application, on the basis of material on record, a finding as envisaged by Clause (a) of Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) as also of criminal contempt of Court having been committed, was returned and as part of a preliminary enquiry, the Delhi Police (Crime Branch or the Economic Offences Wing) was directed to investigate the matter and to report to the Court to enable this Court to continue with the preliminary enquiry as contemplated by Section 340 of TEST.CAS. 19/2004 Page 1 of 2 Cr.P.C. It was further ordered that on receipt of the report from the police, this Court will consider whether the petitioner or other persons as the report might indicate are to be heard and to what extent before making the complaint and initiation of contempt proceedings. 3. The report was finally filed as noted in the order dated 27th September, 2013. The order dated 27th September, 2013 also records that as per report the petitioner has committed an offence of giving false evidence through affidavit and is guilty of an offence under Sections 193,196,199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On request of the counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned on that date. The matter has thereafter been adjourned from time to time. 4. Today none appears for the respondent no.2 / applicant. 5. The counsel for the petitioner states that as per the report, the petitioner is not guilty and is not liable to be proceeded against under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 6. It is deemed appropriate to hear the counsel for the petitioner in the presence of the petitioner who is not present today. 7. List tomorrow i.e. 24th March, 2017 at 1415 hours. 8. It is made clear that if the petitioner does not appear, warrants for his production shall be issued. RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J MARCH 23, 2017 „gsr‟.. TEST.CAS. 19/2004 Page 2 of 2