Filing a false affidavit is an offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the MRTPC has the power to direct an officer to launch prosecution for such an offence under Section 340(3)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Mr. Justice A.N. Divecha, Chairman— The respondent has moved one application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C. for brief) for taking an action against the applicant for filing a false affidavit to the effect that he has not approached the Forum created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the C.P. Act for brief) on the same subject-matter and on the same cause of action. The applicant has filed his reply and has resisted this application on several grounds. The respondent has filed its rejoinder thereto.

2. It would be quite proper to look at the factual backdrop giving rise to this application. The applicant has filed this compensation application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) for claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the application till payment. Regulation 77 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991 (the Regulations for brief) requires an application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act to be supported by an affidavit inter alia declaring that no application has been filed by the applicant either before this Commission or before the Forum created under the C.P. Act in respect of the same subject-matter. An affidavit to that effect has been filed alongwith this application as required by Regulation 77 of the Regulations. According to the respondent, the affidavit accompanying the present compensation application in that regard is false.

3. It may be noted that the compensation application is based on the charge of adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices on the part of the respondent qua purchase of one computer system by the applicant from the respondent under invoice No. 222 dated 28th September, 1996 for Rs. 1,15,000/-. The subject-matter of the compensation application is thus the computer system purchased by the applicant from the respondent. The cause of action for filing the compensation application is supply of a defective computer system. The application is filed by the applicant, named, Rakesh Soni, as a partner of Messrs Natraj Motors. The invoice annexed to the compensation application shows the name of the buyer Messrs Natraj Motors. It thus becomes clear that the computer system in question was purchased by the partnership firm in the name and style of Messrs Natraj Motors.

4. The respondent has filed its reply and has resisted the compensation application on various grounds. It has inter alia contended that the respondent has moved the Consumer Forum at Delhi under the C.P. Act on the same subject-matter and on the same cause of action and the complaint application before the Consumer Forum has been registered as Complaint Case No. 2399/97 and it is pending before District Forum-II. It has further stated that the said complaint application before the Consumer Forum came up for hearing before the competent Consumer Forum on 18th April, 1998 and was then fixed for further proceeding on 24th November, 1998. According to the respondent, the applicant has filed a false affidavit to the effect that no Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act has been moved by or on behalf of the applicant before this Commission. The respondent has, therefore, moved this application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. for taking an appropriate action against the applicant for filing such false affidavit.

5. In his reply to the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant has come out with a case that he had no knowledge about the pendency of any proceeding filed by the respondent when the application for compensation alongwith the affidavit was filed in this Commission. In his reply, the applicant has clearly and categorically stated that he has not suppressed anything from this Commission and has rightly filed the application and the affidavit.

6. In support of its application the respondent has bro