Harnam Singh vs M.P.Singh Saini & Anr.
2013 Latest Caselaw 2559 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                              RESERVED ON : 1st FEBRUARY, 2013
                                DECIDED ON : 30th MAY, 2013

+                        CRL.A.961/2008

      HARNAM SINGH                                     ....Appellant
              Through :         Appellant in person.

                                versus

      M.P.SINGH SAINI & ANR.                     ....Respondents
                Through : Respondent No.1 in person.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.GARG, J.

1. Harnam Singh (hereinafter referred as appellant) has

preferred the present appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 challenging correctness of the order dated 14.08.2008 of

learned Additional District Judge in Civil Suit No.CS/154/2004

„Mohinder Pal Singh and anr. Vs. Harnam Singh‟, by which application

moved by him under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

2. The respondents- Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni and Narinder

Pal Kaur Sahni had filed civil suit No.49/1997 for Mandatory Injunction

and Damages through attorney Mohinder Pal Singh Anand against the

appellant in this Court. The appellant filed written statement. Replication

bearing their signatures was filed by the respondents. The appellant filed

application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (IA No.8597/2000) alleging that

Narinder Pal Kaur‟s signatures on the replication were forged.

Subsequently, he moved another application being (IA No.2982/2002) for

expeditious disposal of his earlier IA No.8597/2000. During the

proceedings, respondent No.2 Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni was asked to file

affidavit indicating whether or not, she had put her signatures on the

replication. She filed an affidavit indicating that the replication contained

her signatures. Vide order dated 17.12.2002, this Court disposed of both

the applications IA Nos.8597/2000 and 2982/2002 taking into

consideration the affidavit filed by the Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni. It was

further observed that the said affidavit was taken on record subject to

cross-examination by the present appellant.

3. Due to change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court, the

suit in question was transferred to Tis Hazari Courts. Respondent No.2-

Narender Pal Kaur did not appear as a witness and the Trial Court closed

the respondents‟ evidence. The appellant moved an application under

Section 340 Cr.P.C. to initiate an enquiry against the respondents and to

send relevant documents on which respondent No.2‟s signatures were

forged for comparison to CFSL. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court,

by the impugned order dismissed the application. Being aggrieved, the

appellant has preferred the appeal.

4. I have heard the appellant- Harnam Singh and respondent-

Mohinder Pal Singh, and have examined the record. Appellant‟s

contention is that replication does not bear Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni‟s

signatures and a false statement was made before the Court. Her

signatures did not match with her genuine signatures on the General

Power of Attorney (GPA) dated 20.08.1997. He relied upon the opinion of

the handwriting experts who was of the view that signatures of Narinder

Pal Kaur Sahni on replication were forged. He urged that since the

respondent No.2 did not appear in the witness-box in compliance of the

order of this Court, he was deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine

her regarding her signatures on the replication. He pointed out that

application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was disposed of by this Court with

the condition that respondent No.2 would appear in the witness-box and

he (the appellant) would have an opportunity to subject her to cross-

examination.

5. Application (IA No.8597/2000) was moved with the prayer

that original GPA containing Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni‟s signatures and

replication be sent to CFSL for comparison for its opinion and action be

taken under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for making false statement on oath.

Apparently, this Court did not accede to it and obtained respondent No.2‟s

affidavit to confirm whether the replication was signed by her. The

required affidavit was filed and taken on record. In the said affidavit cum

undertaking, respondent No.2 categorically stated on oath that replication

was signed by her. Vide order dated 17.12.2002, this Court disposed of

the applications (IA Nos.8597/2000 and 2982/2002). The appellant did

not object to the course adopted by this Court for disposal of his

applications. Of course, the said affidavit was taken on record subject to

cross-examination by the present appellant during Trial. It appears that the

respondents‟ evidence was closed by the Trial Court due to failure of

respondent No.2 to appear and the case was listed for recording evidence

of the defendant (the present appellant). Since Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni

did not examine herself as a witness in the suit, the appellant moved 340

Cr.P.C. application afresh to initiate proceedings for false statement

regarding her signatures on the replication. Learned Trial Court did not

find favour with the appellant and by the impugned judgment, dismissed

it.

6. In my considered view, the appellant had no occasion to

move afresh application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to claim relief which

was denied to him earlier by this Court while deposing of his applications

(IA Nos.8597/2000 and 2982/2002). There was no mandate to respondent

No.2 to appear in the witness-box. Respondent No.1, co-plaintiff,

appeared in the witness box. The appellant was at liberty to cross-examine

him regarding his wife‟s signatures on the replication. All the plaintiffs

are not bound to examine themselves. The Trial Court will be within its

jurisdiction to draw inference for non-appearance of respondent No.2 on

merits of the suit. The Trial Court closed the respondents‟ evidence and

adjourned the case for recording evidence of the appellant. The Trial

Court did not find it expedient to initiate any enquiry under Section 340

Cr.P.C. for the details reasons given in the impugned order. In „Santokh

Singh vs. Izhar Hussain‟, AIR 1973 SC 2190, the Supreme Court held :

"Expedient means that it is not every incorrect or false statement that makes it incumbent on the Court to order prosecution. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where the Court should direct prosecution. The Court should remember that a) too frequent prosecution for such offences tend to defeat its very object; b) prosecution should be resorted to only in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. "

7. It is significant to note that Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni has since

expired and this fact finds mention in the order dated 04.12.2006 in

Crl.M.C.2444-45/2005.

8. I find no illegality or irregularity in the order.

9. In the light of above discussion, appeal filed by the appellant

lacks merits and is dismissed. Trial Court record (if any) be sent back

forthwith.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MAY 30, 2013 tr