* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Reserve: May 08, 2009
Date of Order: May 14, 2009
+ IA No.10703/2007 in OMP No.326/2007
% 14.05.2009
AGGARWAL STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS (P) LTD.
.... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Aggarwal, Adv.,
Petitioner in person.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Kavita Soni, Proxy counsel
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
JUDGMENT
1. By this application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the petitioner asked this Court to record a finding that the respondent appears to have committed offences as stated under Section 195 Cr.P.C. and to make a complaint against the respondent so that the respondent can be tried for the offences allegedly committed by the respondent.
2. The brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this application are that the petitioner made an application under IA No.10703/2007 in OMP No.326/2007 Page 1 of 4 Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act alleging that his contract of engaging him as a Consultant was illegally terminated by the respondent and till the arbitration proceedings were not decided, the Court should issue an injunction restraining the respondent from taking services of another Consultant. It is submitted by the applicant that during pendency of this petition under Section 9 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act the respondent, Executive Engineer Mr. Shailash filed a false affidavit about issuance of fresh tenders and he thereby caused hindrance in the course of justice. Had the Executive Engineer not filed false affidavit, this Court would have allowed him to continue as a Consultant.
3. This Court had dismissed the application of the petitioner under Section 9 vide order dated 13th March, 2008 observing that the contract between the applicant and the respondent was one whereby the applicant was to provide services to the respondent and it was settled principle of law that whenever a contract is determinable in its terms, specific performance cannot be granted under Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act and extension of that principle applies in case of the injunction as well. Therefore, injunction was not admissible wherever specific performance is not available. The contract between the applicant and the respondent contained express condition which made it determinable. The Court therefore held that the petition seeking grant of an injunction that IA No.10703/2007 in OMP No.326/2007 Page 2 of 4 the applicant's contract should continue was unmerited and dismissed the petition.
4. It is apparent that the petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable on the face of it and reference to any document was not necessary in this case, nor the Court made reference to affidavit filed by the Executive Engineer.
5. A perusal of Section 340 Cr.P.C. would show that the Court can make a complaint if the Court is of the opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into commission of any offences referred to in Clause (b) of sub- Section 1 of Section 195. The offences as enumerated in Section 195(1)(b) are offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228, when such offences are alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceedings in the Court. Section 193 is regarding punishment for false evidence as envisaged under Section 191. In the present case no evidence was recorded in the matter. The question of giving false evidence therefore does not arise. Section 194 is regarding fabricating false evidence with the intent to procure conviction of capital offences. This Section is not at all attracted. Similar is the provision of Section 195 which is also not attracted. Section 196 is using evidence known to be false. In this case, no evidence was taken or used by the Court. Similarly, other offences as stated in Section 195 are not attracted in this case.
IA No.10703/2007 in OMP No.326/2007 Page 3 of 4
6. I consider that the present application has been made by the applicant not to uphold the majesty of justice but for grinding his own axe. None of the provisions under Section 195 Cr.P.C. were attracted in this case, since this Court was only deciding an interim application and recording of any evidence was not necessary. The Court has also not placed reliance on affidavits or stand taken by the respondent in the so-called affidavit as alleged by the applicant. I consider it is not a case where the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. should be invoked. The application has no force and is hereby dismissed.
May 14, 2009 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA J.
ak
IA No.10703/2007 in OMP No.326/2007 Page 4 of 4