The court vacated the ex-parte stay due to the petitioner's lack of clean hands, emphasizing adherence to procedural requirements for taking cognizance of offences.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Petition for vacation of ex-parte stay - The court found that the petitioner did not approach with clean hands, and the stay of the order dated 28.06.2022 was vacated - The proceedings before the learned MM pertaining to FIR No. 605/2021 shall remain subject to the outcome of the petition. (Paras 1, 7)

(B) Jurisdiction - The court recognized that under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., cognizance of offences under Sections 193/199 IPC requires a complaint from the court, and not by the police directly. (Paras 4, 6)

(C) Propriety - The court emphasized that all documents must be served and the other party be allowed to file replies to advance fair hearing. (Paras 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged an order allowing the FIR based on allegations of false evidence and sought a stay which was initially granted. Respondent no. 2 contended that the proceedings should continue and the petitioner did not act in good faith in disclosing facts.

Findings of Court:
The court decided that staying the order was inappropriate considering the submissions made and required proceedings to advance fairly.

Issues: Whether the ex-parte stay should be vacated and the implications of proper jurisdiction regarding false evidence accusations.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the petitioner’s lack of full disclosure warranted vacating the stay and highlighted the need for procedural fairness in ensuring all parties received necessary documents.

Result: The stay on the operation of the order dated 28.06.2022 is vacated.

Table of Content
1. application filed for vacation of stay order. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments regarding jurisdiction and false evidence. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's review of previous orders. (Para 5 , 6)
4. vacating of the previous stay order. (Para 7)
5. disposal of the application with directions. (Para 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

CRL M.A. 22998/2022 (for vacation of Ex-Parte Stay)

1. The present application has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of respondent No. 2 for vacating the ex-parte interim order dated 12.09.2022, whereby, this court directed for issuance of notice to respondent no. 2 and subject to hearing respondent no. 2 stayed the operation of the order dated 28.06.2022 passed by the court below.

2. Respondent no. 2 filed this application, which was considered on 10.11.2022 and notice on the said application was directed to be served on the petitioner.

3. Today, extensive submissions were made by respondent no. 2 and learned counsel for the petitioner on the present application. Respondent no. 2 while relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, submits that ex-parte stay granted by this court deserves to be vacated. According to respondent No. 2, the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and continuation of the proceedings before the learned MM would not cause miscarriage of justice. She pointed out that Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8833/2018 is pending before this court, where no stay was granted and Criminal Revision Petition No. 80/2021 is also pending before the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-03, North District, Rohini Courts, Delhi, in that case also no stay has been granted in favour of the petitioner. According to her, even in Revision Petition No. 276/2016, the petitioner could not get any stay before the Financial Commissioner. She states that under the facts of the present case, the propriety demands that the stay granted by this court to the operation of the impugned order be recalled and the matter be heard on merits. She further submits that despite a direction given by this court, she has not been served with the hard copy of the petition along with all documents and, therefore, the petitioner be directed to supply a complete set of pleadings and documents, enabling her to file the reply to the main petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner opposed the prayer and submits that the impugned order of taking cognizance is without any jurisdiction and there is no suppression on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has disclosed all facts in his petition, however, could not bring on record copy of few orders, which are not relevant for adjudication of the instant case. According to him, there is no jurisdiction to the police to investigate an offence and to submit a chargesheet for the offences punishable under Sections 193/199 of the IPC. In view of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., there is a bar in taking cognizance of an offence punishable under Sections 193/199 of the IPC except a complaint made by the court and the procedure for submitting the complaint by the court to Magistrate is to be followed as given under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that if at all there is any false evidence, the concerned court of Tehsildar, where such an application was filed only had the jurisdiction to file the complaint. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Ahlawat v. State of Haryana & Ors., (2000) 1 SCC 278, and has referred paragraph No. 13 of the said decision.

5. I have heard respondent no. 2 in person and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and perused the record.

6. The order dated 18.06.2016 passed by the Sub-Division Magistrate, Narela, would indicate that in paragraph No. 7, thereto, the SDM directed for lodging the FIR aga

Click Here to Read the rest of this document