IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 1212 of 2015

Brigadier Rakesh Sharma

.....

…

Petitioner

Versus

1. Lt. Col K.S. George, AMS (Legal),

Military Secretary Branch, Integrated HQ of MoD

(Army), New Delhi.

2. Capt. Vijay Singh, Assistant Registrar,

Military Hospital, Namkum, Ranchi.

3. Col. Rajinder Kumar, VSM,

Col MS (Legal), Military Secretary Branch,

Integrated HQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi.

4. Union of India through Secretary,

Ministry of Defence, New Delhi.

..... …

Opposite Parties

--------

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

------

For the Petitioner

:

Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate.

:

Mr. Ravindra Nath Chaurasia, Advocate.

For the UOI

:

Mr. Prashant Pallav, ASGI.

------

14/ 16.08.2022

This petition has been filed for initiating an inquiry under

Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against the opposite parties for willfully and

deliberately giving false and contradictory statements on oath, which is

punishable under Section 193 of IPC, in the form of affidavit in Cont.

Case (Civil) No. 113 of 2009, which arose from W.P.(S) No. 5756 of 2007.

2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

O.P. No. 2 has filed the false affidavit before the contempt court, for that

they are liable for enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

3.

It appears that the statements have been made in this petition

that the O.P. No. 2 has filed certain affidavits before the learned Single

Judge in the contempt proceeding, so that for filing the false affidavit, this

petition has been filed for initiating an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

4.

In the contempt proceeding, the petitioner has appeared in

person and he has contended before the learned contempt court that the

representation was not considered in the right direction, as such there is

violation of the order of the writ court. The learned Single Bench after

considering the submission of the petitioner in person, has passed the

following order:-

“I perused the show cause reply and heard the

petitioner in person and learned counsel appearing

for the opposite parties. I find that the opposite

parties have not given comparative details of the

officers to demonstrate that the officers, who were

given promotion, were more suitable or superior to

the petitioner. The opposite parties instead of

recording speaking reasons in the order, as directed

by this court, have passed a laconic and cryptic order.

Some explanation and details have been furnished by

them in the supplementary affidavit, but the same is

not a substitute of the order. When this was pointed

out to the counsel for the opposite parties, he realized

the same and prayed for three weeks time to pass a

fresh order dealing with the points raised in the

petitioner’s representation, in accordance with terms

of the order of this court.

In view of the said prayer of learned counsel

for the opposite parties and also considering that the

opposite parties have tendered unqualified apology

for the inconvenience caused to this court, the

opposite parties are given an opportunity to pass a

fresh speaking order in compliance of the order dated

10^th December, 2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5756 of

2007 within three weeks from the date of receipt /

production of a copy of this order.

With the said direction, this case is disposed

of.”

5.

The contention of the petitioner has already been considered

by the contempt court and the same contempt was disposed of with the

direction passed therein to pass a fresh speaking order in the light of

compliance of the order passed in W.P.(S) No. 5756 of 2007 within three

weeks from the date of receipt / production of a copy of this order.

6.

Mr. Prashant Pallav, learned A.S.G.I. appearing for the Union

of India submits that certain direction has been passe