$~3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 6378/2023 MANAV SAMAJ SUDHAR SURAKSHA SANSTHA NGO THROUGH ITS VICE PRESIDENT NUSRATULLAH KHAN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Alamgir, Advocate versus THE COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Vrinda Kapoor, Ms. Saumya Soni, Mr. Vishal Vaid, Advocates for DDA Mr. Kamran Malik, Mr. Ashraf Husain Farooqui, Advocates for R-6 Mr. Vikas Chopra, Standing counsel with Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate for MCD Mr. Kamran Malik, Mohd Ashraf H Farooqui and Mohd Abid, Advocates for Applicant CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL

O R D E R

% 10.02.2026 CRL.M.A. 33461/2025 (Seeking direction to initiate proceeding of perjury) 1. This application is taken out by the applicant-original respondent no.6 in a disposed of petition (disposed of on 26^th November, 2024), styling to the one under Section 379 read with Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’), for issuance of directions to initiate perjury against the original petitioner.

2. The prayer in the application reads thus:-

“ (i) Allow the application and Punish the Petitioner for filing Writ Petition (C) No. 6378/2023 containing false and/or misleading information intended to mislead this Hon’ble Court and to get favourable order AND (ii) Direct to initiate the perjury proceeding against the Petitioner in Writ Petition (C) NO. 6378 /2023 before a Magistrate of competent jurisdiction at Delhi.”

3. Learned counsel for the applicant-original respondent no.6 is heard at length.

4. It is his contention that the documents which are produced and annexed with the application would demonstrate that the person who has filed the original petition for and on behalf of Manav Samaj Sudhar Suraksha Sanstha, a registered NGO, is not the office bearer viz. Vice President as claimed in the petition and as such, has made a false statement on Oath knowing fully well that he has no authority even by such NGO to file the petition.

5. According to learned counsel for applicant, the document of registration and other document viz. the list of office bearers does not disclose that the said person by name Mr. Nusratullah Khan is an office bearer and in such an eventuality, the said person has made a false statement on Oath and is liable to be proceeded against for offence of perjury in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Section 379 read with Section 528 of BNSS.

6. We have appreciated the said submissions in light of the pleadings of the applicant.

7. If the prayer in the application is carefully perused, which is also reproduced hereinabove, it is seen that the applicant-original respondent no.6, through this application, has sought prayer for punishing the petitioner for filing the writ petition containing misleading information.

8. In our opinion, the said prayer itself is not required to be entertained, particularly, when the petitioner is an NGO and not an individual person and the applicant intends to have action against an individual person and not against the petitioner as could be inferred from the pleadings and arguments canvassed.

9. Apart from above, the writ petition was entertained by this Court on its merits, which espouses a cause of public interest, wherein a public property was encroached and this Court was required to cause indulgence, thereby securing the said property from the encroachment. The cause that was cited before the Court, which prompted the Court to entertain the said petition was already appreciated being one of public interest.

10. That being so, there is no reason to infer mala fides on the part of the said person in the prosecuting the said writ petition.

11. Even otherwise, having regard to the language of Section 379 of BNSS, it is for this Court to exercise the discretion in case if it is satisfied that a false statement is made on Oath.

12. In view of aforesaid observations, the Court is of the view that it is not a fit case wherein this Court