PASSED

IN

I.A.No.3,

DATED

08.06.2023, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 195 OF CR.P.C. FILED

TO INITIATE ENQUIRY U/S 340 OF CR.P.C. AND ALLOW THE

APPLICATION IN I.A.No.3 FILED TO INITIATE ENQUIRY U/S 340

OF CR.P.C.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATING JUDGMENT

THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed praying to set-aside the order

dated

08.06.2023

passed

on

I.A.No.3

in

O.S.No.8170/2019, by the XXIX Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, whereunder the application

filed by the appellant under Section 195 r/w Section

340 of Cr.P.C seeking action against the respondents for

the offences punishable under Sections 177, 191, 196,

199, 200 and 209 of IPC, came to be rejected.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned

counsel for the respondents.

3.

The respondents were the plaintiffs and the appellant

was the defendant in O.S.No.8170/2019. The said suit in

- 3 -

O.S.No.8170/2019 has been filed by the respondents

against the appellant, seeking the relief of ejectment. The

respondents – plaintiffs in Pargraph No.3 of the plaint has

contended

that

the

said

lease

agreement

dated

15.02.2009 was for a period of eleven months. It is

averred in the said plaint that the appellant – defendant

has paid rent upto July 2019 and defaulted in payment of

rent thereafter.

4.

The appellant – defendant appeared in the said suit

and filed the written statement. The appellant –

defendant has not disputed that the plaintiffs are the

landlords and the defendant is the tenant.

5.

The appellant – defendant contended that there was

an understanding that the plaintiffs shall not consider the

defendant as their tenant and the defendant will have to

pay as gratuitous with a specific understanding that the

plaintiffs shall not have any right to disturb the possession

or make any attempt to take any physical possession of

- 4 -

the rented property for a period of twenty years from the

year 2009.

6.

In the said suit, respondent No.1 – Sri.K.R.Umesh

has tendered an affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-

chief and has been examined as PW1 and got marked the

documents as Exs.P1 to P9.

7.

In the said affidavit filed by respondent No.1,

in Paragraph No.4, it is stated that the lease deed dated

15.02.2009 was for a period of eleven months. The

notarized copy of the lease agreement dated 15.02.2009

has been marked as Ex.P5.

8.

Learned counsel for the appellant – defendant filed

I.A.No.3 under Section 195 r/w Section 340 of Cr.P.C to

initiate enquiry as to the perjury committed by the

plaintiffs by making false and misleading statements under

Section 195 of Cr.P.C and to draw a complaint as

contemplated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C for the offences

under Sections 177, 191, 196, 199, 200 and 209 of IPC.

- 5 -

The respondents – plaintiffs filed statement of objections

to the said application.

9.

After hearing both the parties, the Trial Court has

rejected the said application - I.A.No.3 by the impugned

order dated 08.06.2023, which is challenged in this

appeal.

10.

Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that

the plaintiffs knowingly that the lease is for a period of

ten years have made a false averment in the plaint and

also in the affidavit filed in lieu of examination-in-chief by

respondent No.1 and it amounts to giving false evidence /

perjury. He further submitted that the said lease

agreement is unregistered one. The said averment made

by the respondents in the plaint and in the affidavit filed in

lieu of examination-in-chief is to deceive the exchequer for

payment of stamp duty and payment of registration

charges to stealthily get the lease agreement marked as

exhibit and to file ejectment suit by paying meager Court

- 6 -

fee, instead of filing the suit for possession based on the

value of the property.

11.

Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on

the decision of this Court in the case of Dr.Praveen R.

Vs. Dr.Arpitha report