S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

This order will dispose of an application under Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the respondent (C.M. Appl. 41529/2016).

2. The brief facts are that an appeal was preferred by the non-applicant (Ashwini Shourie, hereafter "Shourie") impugning an order dated 18.12.2015 of a learned Single Judge dismissing his writ petition [W.P.(C) 3420/2012]. A shop, i.e. No. 184, INA (Mohan Singh Market, New Delhi), was allotted on the basis of tender dated 31.05.1961, in the name of Sh. Kanta Prasad and Sh. Satish Kumar. On 20.02.1971, the appellant applied for transfer of the shop to his own name. A notice, dated 05.04.1974 was issued to show cause why the allotment of the said shop should not be cancelled. The allotment was cancelled by letter, dated 24.05.1974. Thereafter, Shourie approached the respondents (Directorate of Estates and others, hereafter "the respondents") with some documents claiming "no objection" of the original allottee in his favour. However, the allotment was not to be regularized in favour of the appellant and subsequently, eviction order was passed by the Estate Officer on 22.05.1975.

3. The Appellant filed W.P.(C) 1070/1975, in which this Court initially granted an interim stay of the eviction order. During the pendency of the said petition, in or about the year 1989, the Central Government, as a matter of policy decided to grant ownership rights to the occupants of the subject shops, but provided they fulfilled certain criteria. The decision of the year 1989 to grant ownership rights was superseded by the decision dated 31.08.2000 and fresh notices were issued asking the occupants desirous of ownership rights to comply with the conditions. The appellant, however, did not apply despite repeated opportunities. In the meanwhile, W.P.(C) 1070/1975 filed by Shourie was dismissed for non-prosecution/being in default on 11.01.2001. Though Shourie had not applied in terms of the decision dated 31.08.2000, one Smt. Charanjit Kaur, w/o Sh. Inderjit Singh and Sh. Harinder Singh applied for grant of ownership rights in the shop along with the requisite documents. That application was not considered.

4. Shourie filed a writ petition subsequently (W.P.(C) 3420/2012) in this Court, and by order dated 07.05.2015, the respondents were asked to inspect the shop in question and to file an affidavit within 10 days. An inspection team went to the site on 13.05.2015 and reported that the shop was sub-let. The telephone numbers installed in the shop were verified from MTNL and it was found that they were installed in the name of one Mr. Manuvel Mezhukanal, and the appellant was asked why the telephone numbers were installed in the name of Mr. Manuvel Mezhukanal by letter dated 07.09.2015. By letter-dated 17.09.2015, Shourie stated that Mr. Manuvel Mezhukanal was one of the partners of the firm.

5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the totality of the circumstances of the case, by order dated 18.12.2015 dismissed the petition stating that it was devoid of merit. In the light of this development, the litigation section of the respondents was directed to get the unauthorized occupants of Shop No. 184, INA Market evicted with immediate effect. The appellant appealed to this court by filing LPA 67/2016. The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. This Court, however, issued notice to the appellant on that date, when notice was also issued to other individuals, asking them to show cause why action should be initiated under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code (Cr. PC). The order, issuing show cause notice, stated as follows:

"CM APPL. 41529/2016

The Court notices that the appellant has relied upon a partnership deed dated 02.02.1999 which is part of Annexure A (collectively). Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant Mr. Ashwini Shourie contended that this document is unknown to him and that he did ever file it.

The Court notices that Mr. Shourie had affirmed the affidavit dated 27.01