Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
SANJEEV KUMAR MITTAL..... Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE ..... Respondents
TEST.CAS.No.19/2004
Decided on : 18th November, 2010
Succession Act, 1925 - Section 282 r/w Order 6 Rule 15 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and Sections 191, 193 of Penal Code, 1860--False evidence in probation of will--Forged Will--Perjury--Where a verification is specific and deliberately false, there is nothing in law to prevent a person from being proceeded for contempt--Making false averment 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--A person is under a legal obligation to verify the allegations of fact made in the pleadings and if he verifies falsely, he comes under the clutches of law--There is need for the justice system to protect itself from such wrongdoing so that it can do its task of justice dispensation--It is not necessary that a person should have appeared in the witness box--Offence stands committed and completed by the filing of such pleading.
The ratio decidendi of this case centers on the principle that courts must scrutinize the authenticity of documents presented in probate proceedings, especially when allegations of forgery and fraud are involved. The court emphasized that the integrity of judicial processes requires that only genuine and verified documents are accepted as valid evidence. When forged documents are identified through forensic and investigative means, they lose their evidentiary value, and reliance on such documents undermines the administration of justice (!) .
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the conduct of a party involved in submitting false pleadings and forged evidence constitutes serious misconduct that not only affects the case at hand but also erodes public confidence in the judicial system. Such conduct warrants appropriate criminal action to uphold the rule of law and prevent misuse of the legal process (!) .
Additionally, the case underscores the court's authority to direct criminal investigations against individuals who engage in fraudulent activities, including forgery, false evidence, and contempt of court. The court’s role extends beyond resolving the immediate dispute to ensuring that justice is not compromised by fraudulent practices, thereby reinforcing the importance of truthfulness and integrity in legal proceedings (!) .
In sum, the essential principle derived from this case is that courts must rigorously verify the genuineness of documents, take appropriate action against fraudulent conduct, and uphold the sanctity of the judicial process by deterring misconduct through criminal proceedings when necessary (!) .
Cr.M(M)No.6721/2010
1. Respondent No.2 has filed this application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal procedure for holding an inquiry and to make a complaint to the concerned Magistrate against the petitioner under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. This case demonstrates the extent and type of malaise which clogs the wheels of the justice delivery system. It is an instance of how litigants make false averments of facts in the pleadings and raise untenable contentions with impunity. Thereafter litigation, on controversies supposedly arising out of these false averments are dragged on for years in
the hope that the other side will succumb to buy peace. If the other side does not so =settle‘, in the end, he is hardly compensated and remains a loser. There is little fear of law in the minds of the unscrupulous.
2. Background Facts
2.1 The background facts of this case as stated herein (except where they relate to the record of this suit) are based on the objections and submissions of respondent No.2 and investigations by the police in relation to an earlier FIR, and are therefore not to be taken as final findings of this Court.
2.2 Ram Pyari, widow of Late Shiv Shankar was issueless. She had a brother, Rajinder Nath and a nephew (brother‘s son), named, Dr. (Col.) Kotu Kumar Phull who is respondent No.2 in these proceedings. It appears that she treated respondent No.2 as her own son.
2.3. Ram Pyari owned property bearing No.D-50, Greater Kailash Enclave-II, New Delhi measuring 300 sq.yrds. where she lived.
2.4. Ram Pyari expired on 31st August, 2002 leaving behind duly registered Will dated 3rd May, 1999 registered with Sub Registrar, Hauz Khas, New Delhi as document 582 in Additional Book No.-III, Volume No.9 on pages 185 and 186 on 3rd May, 1999, whereby she bequeathed the aforesaid property to her nephew Dr. (Col.) Kotu Kumar Phull, respondent No.2. This Will bears the photograph and thumb impression of the deceased in addition to her signatures.
2.5. On 31st October, 2003, respondent No.2 applied for mutation of the aforesaid property to DDA on the basis of the Will dated 3rd May, 1999 in pursuance to which DDA carried out the mutation on 12th December, 2003. Thereafter, on 27th January, 2004, respondent No.2 applied for conversion of the said property from leasehold to freehold. At this stage, DDA received a letter dated 20th February, 2004 from the petitioner stating that he had purchased the subject property from Late Ram Pyari in 1998 through Agreement to Sell, Will and GPA. The contents of the said letter are reproduced hereunder:- ?I like to inform you that I had been purchased above said property from Smt. Ram Pyari w/o late Shri Shiv Kumar r/o D-50, Greater Kailash Enclave-II in 1998 through Agreement to Sell and also after some time the allottee had given all document, include her Will, G.P.A. and DDA documents in my name through sub-registrar office.
2.6. On 12th March, 2004, the petitioner also published a public notice in the newspaper to the effect that Late Ram Pyari has executed a Memorandum of Understanding and a Will in favour of the petitioner with respect to the subject property. Respondent No.2 was in US at that time and he received a phone call from India intimating him about the aforesaid public notice whereupon he sent a complaint to Delhi Police through e-mail on 21st March, 2004.
2.7. Apprehending registration of FIR, on 12th April, 2004, i.e., three weeks after the complaint to the police, the petitioner filed the petition for probate before this Court on the basis of the Will and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), both dated 11th May, 1999.
2.8. On 19th April, 2004, the police registered FIR No.95/2004, PS Chitranjan Park, New Delhi against the petitioner. The petitioner applied for anticipatory bail on the ground that he has already filed the probate petition before this Court and vide order dated 12th January, 2004, the petitioner was granted anticipat
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
