SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Del) 1982

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
C. Hari Shankar, J.
G.S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. - Respondent
CM(M) 160 of 2022 & CM Appl. 26958 of 2022
Decided On : 01-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Saurabh Prakash and Anant Aditya Patro, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Lakshay Dhamija and Sahil Dutta, Advocates, for the Respondent.

For initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr PC read with Section 209 IPC, all three ingredients of Section 209 IPC must be present: (i) making a false claim, (ii) fraud or dishonesty in making the claim, and (iii) intent to injure or annoy any person.

Headnote:

Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC) allows a court to initiate proceedings if it is of the opinion that an inquiry should be made into an offense mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr PC. Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with dishonestly making false claims in court. The court analyzes the ingredients of Section 209 IPC and the statements made by the respondent in the reply filed. It also refers to RBI circulars and the Bank's reply in another proceeding to determine the applicability of the ECGC insurance cover scheme. The court concludes that the application is misconceived and an abuse of the process of law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners seek initiation of proceedings against the respondent under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC).

Finding of the Court:

The court examines the provisions of Section 340 Cr PC and Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) invoked by the petitioners. It analyzes the ingredients of Section 209 IPC and concludes that all three elements must be present for initiating proceedings. The court also considers the respondent's statements in the reply filed and the contentions made by the petitioners. It finds that the application is misconceived and an abuse of the process of law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court dismisses the application under Section 340 Cr PC and imposes costs on the applicant/petitioner.

Result: The application is dismissed with costs of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by the applicant/petitioner to the Delhi High Court Staff Welfare Fund (DHSWF) within two weeks.

ORDER (Oral)

CM APPL. 26958/2022 in CM(M) 160/2022

1. By this application, preferred in CM(M) 160/2022, the petitioners seek initiation of proceedings, against the respondent, under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr PC).

2. Section 340 Cr PC reads thus:

"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.

(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-

(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court.

(4) In this section," Court" has the same meaning as in section 195."

3. Clearly, Section 340 Cr PC relates back to Section 195 (1)(b) of the Cr PC.

4. On a query from the Court as to the provision of the IPC, amongst the several provisions envisaged by Section 195 (1) (b) of Cr.PC, that the petitioners seek to invoke against the respondent, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that he is invoking Section 209 of the IPC, which reads as under:

"209. Dishonestly making false claim in Court.-

Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

5. Plainly read, Section 209 IPC applies only where a person fraudulently or dishonestly makes a claim, in a Court, which he knows to be false, with intent to injure or annoy any person. There are, therefore, three ingredients in Section 209, viz. (i) the making, by the accused, of a claim which he knows to be false, (ii) fraud or dishonesty in making of the said claim and (iii) intent, while making the said claim, to injure or annoy any person.

6. These three ingredients, plainly, have to be read cumulatively and, in the absence of any one of the ingredients, even a prima facie case for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr PC read with Section 209 of the IPC cannot be said to be made out.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners attributes the commission of offence, under Section 209 of the IPC, to the respondent, on the basis of para 20 and 50 in the reply filed by the respondent on 14th March, 2022, in response to CM(M) 160/2022.

8. These two paragraphs may be reproduced thus:

"20. That the Respondent company during the year 2016-17 had submitted export bills to the tune of Rs.40 crores approx on collection for payment through Jammu & Kashmir Bank & others which are pending with the Jammu & Kashmir Bank for remittance/settlement. The Export bills are admittedly not been paid by the o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top