Ankur Malik vs Calcutta Medical Centre Ltd.

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Cal) 468

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Ankur Malik – Petitioner
Versus
Calcutta Medical Centre Ltd. – Respondent
IA No. GA 6 of 2022 In CS No.68 of 2011
Decided On : 02-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Mr. Satadeep Bhattacharya, Mr. Subhankar Chakraborty, Mr. Saptarshi Bhattacharjee.
For the Respondent: Mr. Utpal Bose, Mr. Sayantan Basu, Ms. Tanaya Ghose, Mr. Raghunath Ghose, Ms. Pritha Ghose, Ms. Shusna Santra.

Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 340, 144 (2) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 193/200/207, 476(1), 209 and (1) of 195- Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 193, 199 and 200 - Misleading statement by way of an affidavit - Committing offences by filing false - Respondent has filed another petition under Section 144 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure daughter of late Smt. Court of Learned 10th Metropolitan Magistrate which has been supported with an affidavit duly affirmed – Held, Court’s opinion that it is expedient in interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into offences of false evidence and offences against public justice as referred in Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C, having regard to overall factual matrix as well as probable consequences of such a prosecution - Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in interest of justice and appropriate in facts of case - Court do not think materials brought on record are sufficiently adequate to justify conclusion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to file a complaint - G.A. No. 6 of 2022 is thus dismissed

JUDGMENT :

(Krishna Rao, J.) :

1. The plaintiff has filed the instant application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of sanction to prosecute Mr. Raghib Hasnain for committing offences by filing false, untrue, misleading statement by way of an affidavit before this Court in the proceeding of CS 68 of 2011.

2. The plaintiff submits that in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by Mr. Raghib Hasnain being the Director of the defendant Company in connection with GA 4 of 2022 which was affirmed on 29th July, 2022 stating the following at para 3 (x) and para 9 which reads as follows :

“3(x). It was also agreed that the said Dr. Ashok Kumar Gupta and/or their family members have deposited the original title of the said property to the investors of the said property and the same shall remain charged in favour of the said investors till payment of all sums due and payable by the respondent……………”

“9. The existence of tenancy in respect of suit property is denied and disputed. The respondents are the owner of the said property.”

3. The plaintiff submits that the respondent has filed another petition under Section 144 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against Dr. Kalpana Chakravarty, daughter of late Smt. Prema Gupta being MP Case No. 178 of 2022 in the Court of the Learned 10th Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata which has been supported with an affidavit duly affirmed on 26th March, 2022 by one Mr. Anup Karmakar, being the authorized representative of the respondent, Calcutta Medical Centre Limited wherein it is stated that :

“Your petitioner is a tenant of late Smt. Prema Gupta since 1990 and has been enjoying khas possession of the said portion and occupying the same and using the same for its commercial purpose.”

4. Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Learned Senior Advocate representing the plaintiff submits that the above statements have been affirmed as true to the knowledge of the authorized representatives of the defendant i.e. Calcutta Medical Centre Limited.

5. Mr. Mitra submits that the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 29th July, 2022 is to mislead this Court and to interfere with the administration of justice by abusing the process of the Court and thus it is necessary to grant sanction to prosecute Mr. Raghib Hasnain for committing perjury.

6. Mr. Mitra submits that Mr. Raghib Hasnain by affirming a false affidavit in the present case has committed an offence punishable under Sections 193/200/207 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Mr. Mitra relied upon the Judgment reported in (2001) 5 SCC 289 (In Re: Suo Motu proceedings against R. Karuppan) submits that at common law courts took action against a person who was shown to have made a statement, material in proceedings, which he knew to be false or did not believe to be true. The offence committed by him is known as perjury.

8. Mr. Mitra relied upon the Judgment reported in 2011 (121) DRJ 328 (Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs. State) and submits that making false averments in the pleading pollutes the stream of justice. It is an attempt at inviting the Court into passing a wrong judgment and that is why it must be treated as an offence.

9. Mr. Mitra submits that still the defendant is continuing with both the proceedings though the respondent had the knowledge that they have made a false and fabricated statement on affidavit in different proceedings in relation with same matter.

10. Mr. Mitra relied upon the judgment reported in MANU/SCOR/90108/2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 335 of 2022 dated 15th September, 2022 (State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh) and submits that the Court is not obliged to make a preliminary inquiry on a complaint but if the Court decides to do so, it should make a final set of facts which is expedient in the interest of justice that offence should be further probed into.

11. Mr. Utpal Bose, Learned Senior Advocate representing the respondent submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is pending and the same is still to be decided. He submits that