1. A common thread, which runs through the above - captioned four petitions, is that these petitions spring out of proceedings in FIR No. 31/2005 for the offences under Sections 4 06/409/418/420/120B of IPC, - registered at police station Palam Airport, Delhi . Since the facts in the above captioned four petitioners are so intertwined, therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by one common -order.

2. In the above captioned first petition [Crl. M.C. No.1089/2012], an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner has been dismissed by trial Court and learned Revisional Court vide impugned order of 14 th March, 2012 has maintained trial court's order dismissing petitioner's aforesaid application.

3. Challenge to the aforesaid impugned order is on the ground that by concealing and suppressing material facts, complainant/first - informant has managed to get FIR No. 31/1005 registered against petitioner and so, petitioner's application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. could not be outrightly rejected, as at the stage of consideration of this application, it is only to be seen as to whether an enquiry should be made. At the hearing it was submitted by petitioner - S.K. Modi that courts below have gravely erred in brushing aside petitioner's application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. by treating it to be petitioner's defence which is to be considered at the appropriate stage.

To assail the impugned order, reliance was placed upon decisions in M.S. Sheriff & Anr. Vs. State of Madras & ors. AIR 1954 SC 397; Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr. R. Karuppan, Advocate (2001) 5 SCC 289 & Upkar Singh Vs. Ved Prakash & Ors. AIR 2004 SC 4320 and a decision of this Court in Test Case No. 19/2004 Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vs. The State rendered on 18 th November, 2010. Thus, quashing of impugned order is sought with a prayer that petitioner's application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be enquired into.

4. On behalf of complainant /first – informant - Milanpur Steel Ltd. of FIR No. 31/2005 reliance was placed upon Apex Court's decision in Subhash Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & ors. (2000) 9 SCC 356 & P T Rajan Vs. State by Inspector of Life Insurance Corporation 1997 Law Suit (Mad) 549 by learned senior counsel to support the impugned order and to contend that even upon taking petitioner's application / complaint as it is, it cannot be said that suppression amount to perjury. Thus, dismissal of above captioned first petition is sought.

5. The finding returned in the impugned order of 14 th March, 2012 is that petitioner's application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. constitutes his defence and allowing petitioner's application would tantamount to - holding that whole case of complainant is false, which has been investigated into and a charge sheet has been filed.

6. The aforesaid finding in the impugned order rests upon the following reasoning:

'' Having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the instant case as also the - detailed - submissions made by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant, - I am of the opinion that it cannot be said with certainty that the - complainant has made any false and misleading statement in its -complaint. True that the complainant has nowhere referred in its complaint to the previous court proceedings between the parties and the orders passed therein, however, at the same time, the allegations contained in the complaint were found well founded during police investigation, which has culminated in filing of the Charge Sheet against the appellant herein and the other accused. Even otherwise also, the arguments on Charge are yet to be heard by the Ld. ACMM and Charges are yet to be decided. Any order directing enquiry against the complainant u/S 340 (1) Cr.P.C. would seriously prejudice the case of prosecution before the Trial Court and hence, it would not be expedient in the interest of justice so to do. ''

7. In the above captioned second petition [Crl. M.C