Hardev Singh v. Jaswant Singh

of Punjab, wherein he inter alia stated that he has no concern with FIR No.46 dated 21.3.2004 registered at Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) whereas he was involved in the said case. Therefore, according to the petitioner, an offence under Section 193 IPC is made out against the respondent. The petitioner has alleged that FIR No.53 dated 4.5.2009 was registered at Police Station Sadar Faridkot for the offences under Sections 341, 325 and 308 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) against the respondent. The respondent filed Criminal Misc. No.M-15602 of 2009 for the grant of pre-arrest bail in the said case. The petitioner filed a list of CRM No.M-7521 of 2010 [2] FIRs lodged against the respondents in different Police Stations in Punjab and Haryana. The respondent filed a reply in the said case. Besides, he (respondent) submitted a supporting affidavit (Annexure P1) that he filed in Criminal Misc. No. 41445 of 2009 in CRM No. M-15602 of 2009 on

17.8.2009. It is alleged that in the said affidavit (Annexure P1) the respondent stated that he has no concern with FIR No.164 dated 14.8.2003 registered at Police Station Kotkapura for the offences under Sections 471, 379, 468 and 120-B IPC and FIR No.46 dated 21.3.2004 registered at Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. It was also stated by the respondent that he was neither a witness nor an accused in the said FIRs. However, according to the petitioner, the respondent in FIR No.46 dated 21.3.2004 filed Criminal Misc. No. M- 47676 of 2005 for the grant of anticipatory bail in this Court which was granted by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure-P.2). Thereafter, in the said FIR, the respondent was declared a proclaimed offender by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Panipat on

7.6.2008 (Annexure-P.3). The petitioner has alleged that the respondent having filed the false affidavit (Annexure-P.1) in this Court is liable to be proceeded against. It is also alleged that the respondent again filed another false supplementary affidavit dated 9.10.2009 (Annexure P4). After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that affidavit dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure-P.1) is alleged to have been filed by the respondent, which is stated to be false. It has been stated by the respondent in the said affidavit that he has no concern with FIR No.164 dated 14.8.2003 registered at Police Station Kotkapura, District Faridkot for the offences under Sections 471, 379, 468 and 120-B IPC and CRM No.M-7521 of 2010 [3] FIR No.46 dated 21.3.2004 registered at Police Station Matlauda, District Panipat for the offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC. It is also stated by the respondent that he is neither a witness nor an accused in the said FIRs and the FIR registered by petitioner No.1 therein (now respondent) against Punjab Police officials has been compromised. In the case FIR No.46 dated 21.3.2004 an order dated 12.12.2005 (Annexure-P.2) was passed by this Court whereby bail was granted to the respondent herein. In the said order it was recorded that according to the Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State on instructions from Jaipal ASI it was stated that the petitioner (now respondent) was not required for custodial interrogation. Consequently, the application for pre-arrest bail was allowed and the petitioner it was ordered in the event of his arrest shall be admitted to bail. The anticipatory bail was ordered to continue till the filing of the final report before the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, the petitioner was to furnish bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate which were to continue till the conclusion of the trial. The further allegation against the respondent is that in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. No.M-15602 of 2009, the respondent filed another false supplementary affidavit dated

9.10.2009 (Annexure-P.4) in which he stated on affirmation in sub-para (i) of para 3 that FIR No.533 dated 13.12.2008 (Annexure-P.5) under Sections 365, 366, 307, 324, 148, 149 and 34 IPC; besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad against the complainant Hardev Singh (petitioner), his daughter Jiwanjot Kaur, Advocate and his son Gurmail Singh and others. It is submitted by the petitioner that FIR No.533 dated 13.12.2008 (Annexure-P.5) was indeed registered against the petitioner, however, the said FIR lodged by one CRM No.M-7521 of 2010 [4] Gurdeep Singh son of Ajaib Singh was found to be false and after thorough investigation, a cancellation report was filed which was accepted by the learned Court. In any case in the said FIR No.533 dated 13.12.2008 (Annexure-P.5) there was no mention of the name of Jiwanjot Kaur, Advocate and the petitioner has no son namely Gurmail Singh son of Hardev Singh. It is not shown by the petitioner that the respondent had got the benefit of bail by making a wrong averment in case FIR No.46 dated

21.3.2004 by filing a false affidavit dated 17.8.2009 (Annexure P1). Besides, the supplementary affidavit (Anexure-P.4) does not show as to what specific wrong averments have been made. The said affidavits (Annexures P1 and P4) have indeed been filed by the respondent. It is stated in the Affidavit (Annexure P4) that the complainant (i.e. Gurdeep Singh son of Ajaib Singh) is a retired Police Officer and his daughter Jiwanjot Kaur is a practicing Advocate at Faridkot and Moga. Besides, it is stated that FIR No.533 dated 13.12.2008 (Annexure P5) registered at Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad is against Hardev Singh (petitioner) his daughter Jiwanjot Kaur, Advocate and his son Gurmail Singh and others. According to the petitioner there is no name of Jiwanjot Kaur, Advocate and he has no son namely Gurmail Singh. However, their names are mentioned in the supplementary affidavit dated 9.10.2009 (Annexure-P.4). This indeed does not show as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner or what has been gained by the respondent. In fact the respondent in the said affidavit (Annexure P4) has stated in Para 1 that daughter of the complainant is practicing as an Advocate. This in fact would mean Gurdeep Singh son of Ajaib Singh and not the petitioner Hardev Singh. The CRM No.M-7521 of 2010 [5] question, however, that is to be considered is whether the false averments in affidavit (Annexure P1) has affected the administration of justice. In Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another, (2005) 4 SCC 370, a five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court observed that in view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. as the section is conditioned by the words; “Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice”. This, it was observed, shows that such a course would be adopted only if interest of justice requires and not in every case. Besides, before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into the offences referred to in Section 195 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. This expediency would normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of the injury suffered by the person affected by forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon the administration of justice. It was further observed that the provisions of Sections 340, 341 and 343 (2) Cr.P.C. show that in reality, the procedure prescribed for filing a complaint by the Court is such that which may not fructify in the actual trial of the offender for an unusually long period. Delay in prosecution of a guilty person comes to his advantage as witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and the evidence gets lost. Judicial notice was taken of the fact that the Courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted. It was further observed that it would not be fair and proper to give an interpretation which leads to a situation where a person alleged to CRM No.M-7521 of 2010 [6] have committed an offence of the type enumerated in clause (b) (ii) of Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. is either not placed for trial on account of non-filing of a complaint or if a complaint is filed, the same does not come to its logical end. Judging from such an angle would be in consequence with the principle that an unworkable or impracticable result should be avoided. The affidavit (Annexure-P.1) even if it is taken to be false does not show that it has affected the administration of justice inasmuch as the order granting bail to the petitioner therein (now respondent) is not shown to have been based on the said affidavit. Rather it was the learned counsel for the State who on instructions stated that the custody of the petitioner therein (now respondent) was not required for the purposes of investigation. It has not been shown by the petitioner as to which out of the two cases mentioned in the affidavit (Annexure P1) by the respondent against the Punjab Police officials had been compromised. The supplementary affidavit (Annexure-P.4) is also not shown to have affected the administration of justice. The respondent may be wanting to state that the daughter of the complainant in the said case i.e. Gurdeep Singh son of Ajaib Singh is an Advocate. This, however, does not, in any manner, affect the administration of justice. The mere fact that Jiwanjot Kaur and son of the petitioner are not accused in FIR No.533 dated 13.12.2008 (Annexure-P.5) is not such a circumstance for which the respondent is liable to be proceeded against for having committed an offence under Section 193 IPC. It is not that in every case no action is liable to be taken against the respondent who is said to have made false averments in a case. However, the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another (supra) are to be kept in view. CRM No.M-7521 of 2010 [7] In the facts and circumstances, no ground for proceeding against the respondent is made out. Consequently, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed.

19.4.2010 (S.S. SARON) JUDGE