Non-payment of rent is not a penal offence, and affidavits are not considered evidence unless permitted by court order.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Writ Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No. 511 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 132, 115(2), 229, 316(2), 318(4), 351(2), 352, 324, 329(3), 336(3), 338, 336(4), 340(2), 343, 308(2) and 61(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner nos.2 and 3 being the directors of Media Eleven Private Limited- a company, took the premises of the informant on rent but defaulted in paying rent and did not vacate the said premises. The informant filed JBC Case No. 38 of 2017 for eviction of the petitioner nos.1 and 2 and the petitioner no.2 filed a false affidavit in the said JBC Case No. 38 of 2017 hence, it is alleged that the petitioner no.2 Arup Chatterjee has given false evidence and fabricated false affidavit in a judicial proceeding. It is further alleged that JBC Case No. 38 of 2017 has been allowed in favour of the informant and the execution proceeding was also going on and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the meanwhile, petitioner nos.2 and 3 have been evicted from the tenanted premises of the informant; which fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2-the informant of the case. It is further alleged that the petitioner no.2 is a history sheeter, being involved in 43 different cases, the list of which have been annexed and he is threatening the informant by himself and through the petitioner nos.1 and 4- who are the staffs of the said Media Eleven Private Limited. After registration of the case, police is investigating the case.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even if the entire allegation made against the petitioners in the FIR are considered to be true in their entirety, still, no offence punishable in law is made out against the petitioners. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the allegations against the petitioners are false and this criminal proceeding has been initiated to harass the petitioners by wreaking vengeance upon the petitioner no.2, who runs the satellite news channel and is a senior journalist. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 is the Executive Editor of the said news channel and the petitioner no.4 is the anchor in the news channel. It is then submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that several FIRs have been registered against the petitioner nos.2 and 3 in order to muzzle up the media which is broadcasting the conduct and activities of the various officers of the State Government and he is eyesore of the higher officers of the State of Jharkhand. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute. Relying upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Mishra vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. In W.P. (Cr.) No. 329 of 2005, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Smt. Sudha Devi vs. M.P. Narayanan reported in AIR 1988 SC 1381 wherein, the following has been observed in the relevant portion of the said judgment, by the coordinate Bench, which reads as under:-

“Besides, affidavits are not included in the definition of ’evidence’ in Section 3 of the Evidence Act and can be used as evidence only, if for the sufficient reason court passes an order under O. XIX, Rule 1 or 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure”.

5. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is a settled principle of law as has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Nitu Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. &