Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
J.R. MIDHA, J.
H.S. Bedi - Appellant
Versus
National Highway Authority of India - Respondent
RFA 784/2010
Decided on : 22.01.2016
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 209 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 340 - False claim - Application of section 340 Cr.P.C. - Appellant let out property - Lease period expired - Lease was mutually extended - On intimation premises was not vacated - Refund of security deposit was claimed - Appellant declined to refund the same as the same had been adjusted against liquidated damages - Whenever a false claim is made before a Court, it would be appropriate to issue a show cause notice to the litigant - For having made a false claim under Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code and a reasonable opportunity be afforded to the litigant to reply to the same - If an offence appears to have been committed and it is expedient in the interests of justice to proceed to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. - Court need not order a preliminary inquiry - If they are not, the Court may order a preliminary inquiry.
Penal Code, 1860 - Section 209 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 340 - False claim - Amounts to offence - Suit for recovery of the security deposit - Trial Court decreed the respondent's suit and held that the appellant made a false claim - Show cause notice was issued to the appellant for making a false claim under Section 209 of IOC - Making a false averment - It is an attempt at inviting the Court into passing a wrong judgment- It has been treated as an offence - False evidence in the vast majority of cases springs out of false pleading, and would entirely banish from the Courts if false pleading could be prevented.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points regarding the scope and application of Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code and related legal principles are as follows:
The offence under Section 209 IPC involves dishonestly or fraudulently making a false claim in a Court of Justice, with knowledge of its falsity and with an intent to injure or annoy any person (!) (!) .
A ‘claim’ encompasses not only the prayer or relief sought but also the grounds or factual basis for obtaining that relief, including denials of averred facts, which can constitute a false claim if made knowingly and dishonestly (!) (!) .
The offence is complete at the moment a false claim is filed in court, regardless of whether the claim is wholly or partially false (!) .
The word ‘court of justice’ refers to the judicial institution or body where disputes are adjudicated, not merely the physical court building or a judge acting individually. The court’s role is to discover the truth and deliver justice (!) (!) (!) .
The essential ingredients of the offence include the making of a false claim in a court, the claimant’s knowledge of its falsity, and the claim being made with fraudulent or dishonest intent (!) (!) (!) .
False claims that lack factual foundation—such as claims that are completely unsupported by evidence or based on fabricated documents—are primary examples of offences under Section 209. The law targets claims made without any factual basis or with deliberate falsehoods (!) (!) (!) .
The test for falsity involves examining whether the action has a proper factual or legal foundation that entitles the party to seek relief. It is not merely about the pleadings but the substance of the claim or defence, considering the wider factual context (!) (!) .
The law criminalizes false claims and defences because they undermine the integrity of the judicial process, delay justice, and diminish public confidence in courts. The purpose is to uphold the sanctity of justice and prevent abuse of court procedures (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The offence is non-cognizable and non-compoundable, and prosecution generally requires a complaint initiated by the court based on a prima facie finding of falsity and expediency in the interest of justice (!) (!) (!) .
A solicitor’s duty is primarily to assist the court in discovering the truth, which includes a duty of candour and honesty. While they are not required to verify every instruction, they must avoid knowingly assisting in falsehoods and must act with integrity in presenting their client’s case (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The timing of when a ‘claim’ is considered to be made is generally at the close of pleadings or when the relevant evidence is filed, depending on the type of action. The claim’s falsity must be assessed based on the substance and context, not solely on the pleadings’ face value (!) (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that falsehoods, whether in pleadings, evidence, or claims, erode the integrity of the judicial process and should be dealt with firmly to maintain public confidence and uphold the rule of law (!) (!) (!) .
The procedure for initiating prosecution involves issuing a show cause notice, recording prima facie evidence, and, if warranted, proceeding without a preliminary inquiry, especially when the facts are clear and the offence appears to have been committed (!) (!) .
The law also recognizes the importance of active judicial inquiry and powers under the Evidence Act to elicit the truth, including the judge’s authority to question witnesses and order investigations to uncover falsehoods (!) (!) (!) .
Overall, the legal framework aims to deter false claims, protect the integrity of courts, and ensure that justice is based on truth, with appropriate penalties for those who abuse the process through falsehoods or fraudulent conduct (!) (!) (!) .
These points collectively highlight the importance of honesty in judicial proceedings, the scope of criminal liability under Section 209 IPC, and the responsibilities of legal professionals and courts in safeguarding the integrity of the justice system.
1. In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470, J.S. Khehar, J. observed that the Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation and ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. The Supreme Court, discussed the menace of frivolous litigation. Relevant portions of the said judgment are as under:
“191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved, to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession, towards senseless and ill-considered claims.
One needs to keep in mind, that in the process of litigation, there is an innocent sufferer on the other side, of every irresponsible and senseless claim. He suffers long drawn anxious periods of nervousness and restlessness, whilst the litigation is pending, without any fault on his part. He pays for the litigation, from out of his savings (or out of his borrowings), worrying that the other side may trick him into defeat, for no fault of his. He spends invaluable time briefing counsel and preparing them for his claim. Time which he should have spent at work, or with his family, is lost, for no fault of his. Should a litigant not be compensated for, what he has lost, for no fault?...
xxx xxx xxx
194. Does the concerned litigant realize, that the litigant on the other side has had to defend himself, from Court to Court, and has had to incur expenses towards such defence? And there are some litigants who continue to pursue senseless and ill-considered claims, to somehow or the other, defeat the process of law. …”
2. The greatest challenge before the judiciary today is the frivolous litigation. The judicial system in the country is choked with false claims and such litigants are consuming Courts’ time for a wrong cause. False claims are a huge strain on the judicial system. Perjury has become a way of life in the Courts. False pleas are often taken and forged documents are filed indiscriminately in the Courts. The reluctance of the Courts to order prosecution encourage the litigants to make false averments in pleadings before the Court. Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code, which provides an effective mechanism to curb the menace of frivolous litigation, has been seldom invoked.
3. An important question of law of public interest relating to the scope of Section 209 of Indian Penal Code has arisen for consideration before this Court. Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code provides that dishonestly making a false claim in a Court is an offence punishable with punishment of imprisonment upto two years and fine. Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code is reproduced hereunder: -
“Section 209 - Dishonestly making false claim in Court —
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
4. Background facts
4.1. The appellant let out property bearing No.B-529, New Friends Colony to the respondent for a period of three years vide registered lease deed dated 27th April, 1998. Three years’ period expired on 14th April, 2001. However, the parties, by exchange of letters, mutually extended the lease upto 30th September, 2001.
4.2. Vide letter dated 24th September, 2001, the respondent intimated the appellant that the suit property would be vacated on 30th September, 2001 and, therefore, the appellant may depute a representative to take over the possession. However, the appellant did not turn up to take the physical possession.
4.3. Vide letter dated 01st October, 2001, the respondent intimated the appellant that the suit property had been vacated on 30th September, 2001 and once again requested the appellant to take over the possession. However, the appellant kept on delaying the taking over of the po
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
