2023/DHC/000816

OMP (COMM) 361/2019 & OMP (CONT.) 1/2017

Page 1 of 16

$~J~

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Date of decision: 6^th February 2023

+

O.M.P. (COMM) 361/2019 & I.A.15453/2022

MILAN SAINI

..... Petitioner

Through:

Mr.

Ambar

Qamaruddin

with

Mr.Varun

Nischal,

Mr.

Vaibhav

Mishra and Ms. Harshita Gautam,

Advocates with Mr Milan Saini/

petitioner via video conferencing.

Mr. Gautam Narayan, Amicus Curiae

versus

KAMAL KUMAR & ANR.

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Anirudh Bakhru with Mr. Ayush

Puri, Mr. Tejaswini Chandrashekhar,

Mr. Umang Tyagi and Mr. Prateek

Kumar Jha, Advocates for R1.

Ms. Kruttika Vijay, Advocate for R2.

+

OMP (CONT.) 1/2017

KAMAL KUMAR

..... Decree Holder

Through:

Mr. Anirudh Bakhru with Mr. Ayush

Puri, Ms. Tejaswini Chandrashekhar,

Mr. Umang Tyagi and Mr. Prateek

Kumar Jha, Advocates.

versus

MILAN SAINI

..... Judgement Debtor

Through:

Mr.

Ambar

Qamaruddin

with

Mr.Varun

Nischal,

Mr.

Vaibhav

Mishra and Ms. Harshita Gautam,

Advocates with Mr Milan Saini via

video conferencing.

Mr. Gautam Narayan, Amicus Curiae.

Ms. Nidhi Raman CGSC with Mr.

Zubin Singh and Ms. Devika Bajaj,

Advocates for UOI.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI

Digitally Signed

By:NEERAJ

Signing Date:06.02.2023

11:43:05

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/000816

OMP (COMM) 361/2019 & OMP (CONT.) 1/2017

Page 2 of 16

J U D G M E N T

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI J.

CRL.M.A.19908/2022 in O.M.P. (COMM) 361/2019

CRL.M.A. 19909/2022 in OMP (CONT.) 1/2017

By way of the present application bearing Crl. M.A.

No.19908/2022 filed in OMP (COMM.) No.361/2019 under section

340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 („Cr.P.C.‟ for short), the

applicant Kamal Kumar, seeks action against the petitioner Milan

Saini and his Special Power of Attorney-holder („ SPA-holder‟ for

short) Siri Chand Saini inter-alia for committing perjury. Another

application bearing Crl. M.A. No.19909/2022 has been filed by the

same applicant in OMP (CONT.) No.1/2017 under section 340

Cr.P.C., containing identical allegations.

2.

In view of the commonality of the allegations and issues involved,

both applications are being decided by the present common judgment.

3.

To crystallize the allegations made in the applications, reference may

be made to the following paragraphs of one of the applications, which

are mutatis mutandis the same in the other application :

Paras of Crl. M.A. 19908/2022

“8. That a bare look at the aforesaid purported signatures [on the

Digitally Signed

By:NEERAJ

Signing Date:06.02.2023

11:43:05

Signature Not Verified

2023/DHC/000816

OMP (COMM) 361/2019 & OMP (CONT.) 1/2017

Page 3 of 16

“9. That the Applicant has filed the present application after

“10. That M/s Truth Labs Forensic Services has since given its

Report dated 04.08.2022 to the effect that differences between the

admitted signatures (on the Power of Attorney) and the questioned

signatures (on the above documents -listed at S. Nos. a to c of para

7, above) are fundamental in nature and beyond the limit of

natural variations.

“12 It further observed that ―Both questioned and admitted

signatures also do not agree in their general handwriting

characteristics such as relative size and different alignment of

characters with respect to each other, relative spacing between

them, speed and skill, movement, slant etc.‖

“12 That with the above observations and findings, M/s Truth Labs

Forensic Services has opined that ―Cumulative consideration of all

the above led me to the opinion that the person who write admitted

signatures marked a1 to A6 did not write the questioned signatures

marked QI state that to Q10.‖

(there is a second para 12 in the application)

“14. Now that