Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KURIAN JOSEPH, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Amarsang Nathaji as Himself & as Karta & Manager - Appellant
Versus
Hardik Harshadbhai Patel & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11120 of 2016 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 13749 of 2016)
Decided On : 23-11-2016
(1992) 3 SCC 178; (2002) 1 SCC 253; (2005) 4 SCC 370 – Relied upon
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 340(1) – Complaint filed u/s 340 has to be dealt with as if on a police report – Procedure for trial of warrant case to be followed – Sections 195(1)(b)(i) and 238 to 243 – Code therefore providing meticulous procedures u/s 340 – High Court not following all requirements u/s 340 – Parties deciding to settle the matter amicably – Invoking section 340 not sustainable. (Para 11, 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad declined to grant an interim injunction in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2012.
The High Court dismissed the appeal confirming the order passed by the trial court.
SLP thereagainst has also been dismissed.
The High Court, on account of the contradictory stand taken by the appellant herein who was the first respondent before the High Court (Defendant no.1 in the Suit), took the view that the conduct of the appellant has affected the administration of justice, and therefore, it was expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint against the appellant under Section 340 of the Code.
Finding of the Court:
Impugned order, to the extent of initiation of the proceedings under Section 340, is not sustainable.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The procedure for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) must be meticulously followed. The court must form a prima facie opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to conduct an inquiry into the alleged offence, and this opinion must be based on sufficient material that indicates the commission of the offence (!) (!) (!) .
The decision to file a complaint under Section 340(1) requires a two-fold condition: there must be prima facie material indicating the commission of an offence, and it must be deemed expedient in the interests of justice to proceed with an inquiry (!) (!) .
A mere contradictory statement in judicial proceedings does not automatically justify initiating a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court must be satisfied that there has been an intentional false statement or fabricated evidence for the purpose of misuse of judicial proceedings (!) (!) .
The formation of the opinion by the court that it is expedient to inquire into an offence must be based on a careful assessment of the overall factual context and potential impact on the administration of justice. The court can dispense with a preliminary inquiry if it is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion (!) .
The procedure for trial after the filing of a complaint under Section 340 is akin to that of a police report, requiring adherence to the procedures for warrant cases, including proper recording of the opinion, filing of the complaint in writing, and subsequent trial procedures (!) (!) .
The court's failure to follow the prescribed procedural requirements under Section 340(1) of the CrPC, especially in forming its opinion and deciding to file a complaint, renders the initiation of proceedings invalid. Such procedural lapses warrant setting aside the order (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Considering the facts and subsequent developments, including amicable settlement of disputes, the court found that the order initiating proceedings under Section 340 was not sustainable and needed to be set aside to uphold the interests of justice (!) (!) .
The overall conclusion emphasizes that the initiation of proceedings under Section 340 must strictly adhere to the procedural safeguards and that courts must exercise caution and due diligence before proceeding with such actions (!) (!) .
In summary, the document underscores the importance of strict procedural compliance and careful judicial assessment before initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC, and highlights that procedural lapses can lead to the order being set aside.
JUDGMENT
Kurian, J.
Leave granted.
2. The scope of this appeal is limited to the challenge on legality of the proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) initiated by the High Court as part of the impugned judgment dated 12th/13th April, 2016 in Appeal from Order No. 489 of 2013 on the file of the High Court of Gujarat. The appeal before the High Court arose from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad declining to grant an interim injunction, in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2012. Having extensively referred to the materials on record, the High Court after elaborately considering the arguments, by a detailed judgment, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the trial court. The plaintiff/respondent had also approached this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14478 of 2016. The said Special Leave Petition has been dismissed on 15.11.2016 as not pressed on the submission that the parties have reached an amicable settlement on the issue.
3. The High Court, on account of the contradictory stand taken by the appellant herein who was the first respondent before the High Court (Defendant no.1 in the Suit), took the view that the conduct of the appellant has affected the administration of justice, and therefore, it was expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint against the appellant under Section 340 of the Code.
4. It is necessary to refer to the relevant paragraphs in the judgment where the High Court has dealt with the issue:
“19. Before concluding, the Court deems it necessary to take serious view on the conduct of the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1, who either for an extraneous consideration, or to save his skin, has taken contradictory stands in the judicial proceedings by filing one written statement at Exh. 20 supporting the case of the present appellant – plaintiff and subsequently by filing the application at Exh. 43, and other documents in the nature of affidavits supporting the case of the respondents No.3 to 5. It appears that the respondent No.1 has tried to change his version after the impugned order was passed by the trial Court, just to suit his purpose, misusing and abusing the process of law. The Court is constrained to observe that due to sky-rocketing escalation in the prices of the lands in and around the urban areas, the execution of such illegal agreements at the instance of the owners/power-of-attorney holders/banakhat holders has become rampant, and that more often than not, the proceedings of Courts are being misused and abused to a large extent by such unscrupulous elements. In many cases, innocent persons are being cheated and defrauded by such elements, in the quest of earning easy money, dragging such innocent persons to litigations which go on for years together.
20. In the instant case also, the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 after requesting the trial Court to reopen his right to file written statement, and after filing written statement at Exh.20 along with the affidavit and declaration supporting the case of the appellant – plaintiff, had filed an application at Exh. 43, requesting the trial Court to de-exhibit the earlier written statement at Exh. 20 by stating, inter alia, that the said written statement was filed by the Advocate Ms. Trupti Patel on his behalf without his knowledge. The said Application at Exh. 43 was rejected by the trial Court, which order has remained unchallenged. All these documents namely the written statement at Exh. 20 with affidavit and declaration and the other written statement and the affidavit filed before the trial Court have also been produced by the learned Counsels for the parties in the present proceedings and have been relied upon by them, to support their respective contentions. From the said documents on record, it clearly transpires that the respondent No.1 – defendant No.1 had sought to produce two sets of documents contradictory to each other, in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
