Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2009 in 1 Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2009 in Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 Date of Decision : September 15, 2011 Ashok Kumar .... Petitioner Vs. Sharda Kadan and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Ms. Anju Arora, Advocate for the petitioner – Ashok Kumar. Mr. S. S. Narula, Advocate for respondent no. 1 – Sharda Kadan. Mr. John Kumar, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 (Vikram Singh and Rakesh Gupta – Advocates). * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sharda Kadan – respondent no.1 herein filed Crl. Misc. No. M- 1860 of 2009 against six respondents including Ashok Kumar – petitioner herein as respondent no.4 in the said petition. The said petition was filed through Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate and Mr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate (arrayed as respondents no.2 and 3 herein). It was asserted in the said Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2009 in 2 Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 petition that the petitioner Sharda Kadan (respondent no.1 herein) has not filed any such or similar petition earlier either in this Court or in the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Affidavit of petitioner Sharda Kadan to this effect was also filed with the said petition. Ashok Kumar has filed the instant petition under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) alleging that Sharda Kadan had earlier filed Crl. Misc. No. M-34361 of 2008, which was dismissed on 24.12.2008 and thereafter filed similar Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 on 20.01.2009 falsely stating that no such or similar petition had earlier been filed in this Court. Accordingly, in the instant petition, Ashok Kumar has sought launching of criminal proceedings against respondents Sharda Kadan, Vikram Singh – Advocate and Rakesh Gupta – Advocate for offences under Sections 193, 120-B and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC). The instant petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been opposed by the respondents. Respondent no.1 Sharda Kadan has alleged that instant petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable as it does not disclose any offence mentioned in Section 195 (1) (b) (i) Cr.P.C. However, it was admitted that Sharda Kadan – respondent no.1 herein had earlier filed Crl. Misc. No. M-34361 of 2008, which was dismissed on 24.12.2008 and then filed similar petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009, which was, however, withdrawn on 21.01.2009 and there was no Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2009 in 3 Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 attempt to mislead the Court. Respondents no.2 and 3, in their reply affidavits, have stated that the subsequent petition Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 was filed as a result of oversight and bona fide mistake, which was inadvertent and unintentional. They have tendered unqualified apology for the same. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. In so far as respondents no.2 and 3 (Advocates) are concerned, they have tendered unqualified apology for unintentional and bona fide mistake in filing the second petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009. They have also stated that the same was immediately withdrawn on 21.01.2009 at the time of preliminary hearing. Keeping in view the unqualified apology tendered by respondents no.2 and 3, admitting their mistake terming the same to be unintentional and bona fide, I am inclined to accept the said unqualified apology with direction to respondents no.2 and 3 to be careful in future. It would not be expedient in the interest of justice to launch any criminal complaint against respondents no.2 and 3 in view of their unqualified apology. Accordingly, unqualified apology tendered by respondents no.2 and 3 is accepted with direction to them to be careful in future. As regards respondent no.1 Sharda Kadan, her counsel submitted that complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be made only Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2009 in 4 Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 regarding offences covered by clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C., but none of the said offences has been committed in the instant case. It was submitted that mere filing of affidavit does not amount to false evidence within the purview of Section 193 IPC. It was also submitted that affidavit annexed with Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 contained false averment regarding non-filing of such or similar petition earlier, but did not contain any false averment regarding merits of the case, and therefore, no complaint is required to be made under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 has placed reliance on four judgments i.e. a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jotish Chandra Chaudhury vs. State of Bihar reported as AIR 1969 Supreme Court 7, another judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court namely Rugmini Ammal (dead) by Lrs. vs. V. Narayana Reddiar and others reported as 2007 (6) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 690, a judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kapoor vs. Finance-cum-Health Secretary, Chandigarh Administration and another reported as 1974 Crl. L. J. 862 (V. 80 C. 276) and another judgment of this Court titled Shiv Raman Gaur vs. Madan Mohan Kanda reported as 1990 (3) Recent Criminal Reports 461. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that respondent no.1 herein intentionally made false statement in her affidavit in Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 that no such or similar petition had earlier Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2009 in 5 Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 been filed in this Court, although admittedly exactly similar petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-34361 of 2008 had earlier been filed and dismissed. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Section 195 (1) (b) (i) Cr.P.C. relates to various offences including offence under Section 193 IPC. Section 193 IPC prescribes punishment for giving false evidence. `False Evidence' has been defined in Section 191 IPC as under :- “191. Giving false evidence – Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.” In the instant case, respondent no.1 herein was legally bound by oath to state the truth in her affidavit filed in Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 and was also bound by law (High Court Rules and Orders) to make declaration that no such or similar petition had earlier been filed in this Court, but she made false statement to this effect on oath, and therefore, this false statement on oath in the affidavit squarely falls within the definition of Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2009 in 6 Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 false evidence as given in Section 191 IPC. Consequently, the same is punishable under Section 193 IPC, which is one of the offences referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) (i) Cr.P.C., for which complaint has to be made under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The contention of counsel for respondent no.1 that the false averment did not touch the merits or the facts of the case, does not come to the rescue of respondent no.1 because it is requirement laid down by High Court Rules and Orders that filing of previous petition, if any, has to be disclosed and if no such or similar petition had earlier been filed, then this fact has to be stated. This requirement has been prescribed to avoid filing of similar petitions repeatedly by the litigant. However, respondent no.1 herein, by filing Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009, tried to overreach this Court by concealing the factum of filing of exactly similar petition bearing Crl. Misc. No. M-34361 of 2008, which already stood dismissed. This is a very serious matter touching the administration of justice. Respondent no.1 herein tried to play hide and seek with this Court. It is, therefore, expedient in the interest of justice to file complaint against respondent no.1 herein, as required by Section 340 Cr.P.C. for commission of offences under Section 195 IPC. If no such complaint is filed, the litigants would feel emboldened and encouraged to file false petitions and false affidavits. As regards judgments cited by counsel for respondent no.1 the same are not applicable to the facts or the instant case. In the case of Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2009 in 7 Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 Rugmini Ammal (supra), it was held that complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. would be required when offence of forgery is committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in any Court and not when the document is forged before filing the same in evidence. Obviously, this judgment has no bearing on the case in hand. Judgments in the cases of Shiv Raman Gaur (supra) and Jotish Chandra Chaudhury (supra) relate to Section 199 and Section 200 IPC, whereas in the instant case, offence under Section 193 IPC is involved. In the case of Anil Kapoor (supra), it was held that where the false declaration does not touch any material point and where the Court is not authorized to receive such declaration as evidence of any fact, then no offence is committed. However, in the instant case, this Court was authorized to receive the affidavit containing false averment filed by respondent no.1 herein with her petition Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009. So, this judgment is also not applicable to the instant case. Moreover, case of Anil Kapoor (supra) also relates to Section 199 and Section 200 IPC and not to Section 193 IPC. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that it is expedient in the interest of justice to lodge criminal complaint against respondent no.1 herein Sharda Kadan, as required by Section 340 Cr.P.C. for commission of offence under Section 193 IPC. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Registrar General/authorized Officer of this Court is directed to file Crl. Misc. No. M-18869 of 2009 in 8 Crl. Misc. No. M-1860 of 2009 necessary criminal complaint against Sharda Kadan – respondent no.1 herein in the Court of competent jurisdiction. September 15, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE