M.P.Singh Sahni & Anr. vs State & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 4319 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                    RESERVED ON : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2014
                                    DECIDED ON : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2014

+                              CRL.M.C. 2444-45/2005

       M.P.SINGH SAHNI & ANR.                                   ..... Petitioners

                               Through :       Mr.Arvind K.Gupta, Advocate with
                                               Mr.Anshul Garg and Mr.Abhishek
                                               Goyal, Advocates.


                               VERSUS

       STATE & ANR.                                             ..... Respondents

                               Through :       Mr.M.N.Dudeja, APP.


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

S.P.GARG, J.

CRL.M.A.Nos.1623/2014 & 18611/2013 in Crl.M.C.2444-45/2005

1. By this common order, Crl.M.A.No.18611/2013 filed by

Harnam Singh under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and Crl.M.A.No. 1623/2014

filed by Sh.Arvind Kumar Gupta, Advocate on behalf of M.P.Singh Sahni

and Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni for correction in the orders dated 04.12.2006

and the judgment dated 30.05.2013 will be disposed of. I have heard the

learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record.

2. Harnam Singh (hereinafter referred as „complainant‟) had

filed several complaint / civil cases against M.P.Singh Sahni (to be

referred as „petitioner No.1‟) and his wife Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni (to be

referred as „petitioner No.2‟). In some complaint cases, petitioners No. 1

& 2 were summoned as accused. Aggrieved by the said orders, they filed

various Crl.M.C.Nos.3772/2003, 2444-45/2005, 54/2008, 2790/2000,

3773/2003, 3779/2003, 3781/2003, 3782/2003, 3784/2003, 3193/2005 and

3783/2003 for quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

All these petitions were heard and decided together by orders dated

30.05.2013. It is relevant to note that both the parties had challenged the

orders by filing SLPs before the Supreme Court, which were dismissed.

3. It is a matter of record that in Crl.M.C.No.2444-45/2005, the

petitioners had challenged the summoning order dated 01.05.2003. The

petitioners were represented by Sh.R.N.Mittal, Sr.Advocate with

Mr.A.K.Gupta and Mr.Prasoon Kumar, Advocates. The complainant was

represented by Sh.Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate. On 04.12.2006, it was

stated that the petitioner No.2 i.e. Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni had expired.

Accordingly, her name was deleted from the array of the parties. The

matter was re-notified for 12.03.2007. Interim order was ordered to

continue. The order-sheet, however, does not reflect if petitioner No.1 was

present in person on that day and had given the intimation about the death

of his wife (petitioner No.2). It is unclear as to which of the counsel

representing the petitioners had conveyed the information of death. The

proceedings continued thereafter, and finally on 30.05.2013, all these

petitions were disposed of. While allowing the petition filed by the

petitioners, setting aside the impugned order dated 01.05.2003 it was

noted in the judgment, "It is relevant to note that Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni

has since expired and this fact finds mention in the order dated

04.12.2006."

4. The complainant seeks to initiate proceedings under Section

340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners for making a false statement

dishonestly before the Court on 04.12.2006 about petitioner No2‟s death.

He asserted that petitioner No.2 was alive and the statement made by

petitioner No.1 before the Court on 04.12.2006 about her death was false /

incorrect to his knowledge.

5. Petitioners in Crl.M.A.No.1623/2014 prayed to make

necessary correction in the order dated 04.12.2006 and 30.05.2013 as due

to inadvertence, the factum of her death was recorded therein. No such

information was conveyed to the Court. The complainant was aware about

this fact and he initiated proceedings subsequent to that against her.

6. It is matter of record that in the order-sheet dated 04.12.2006,

the factum of death of Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni (petitioner No.2) finds

mention. However, memo of parties in the judgment dated 30.05.2013 by

which the present petition along with various other petitions was disposed

of reflects the petitioners as „M.P.Singh Sahni and another‟. Complainant

never raised any grievance, any time, prior to disposal of the petition if

Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni was alive and the statement regarding her death

was made fraudulently or dishonestly. Order-sheet dated 04.12.2006 does

not show if complainant appeared in person on that day. Learned counsel

for the petitioners has produced on record several documents to show that

subsequent to the order dated 04.12.2006, the complainant, director of

respondent No.2 i.e. G.C.Construction had filed application under Section

340 Cr.P.C. in Suit No.154/04 pending in the Court of Sh.Inderjeet Singh,

Learned Addl. District Judge, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in the matter of

Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni and Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni vs. Harnam Singh

on 16.03.2007 along with an affidavit. The said application was contested

by the petitioners and reply along with their respective affidavits was filed

by them in April, 2007. He further informed that under Section 341

Cr.P.C., the complainant had filed an appeal (Crl.A.No.961/2008) before

this Court on 15.10.2008. The said appeal was contested by the petitioners

and „vakalatnama‟ dated 02.07.2009 vide diary No.101314 was filed on

behalf of petitioner No.2. The certified copy of the said power of attorney

has been placed on record. Apparently, at no stage, the complainant

considered Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni to have expired. Rather, he initiated

proceedings against her subsequent to the order dated 04.12.2006. It

appears that due to inadvertence, the factum of death of petitioner No.2

(Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni) came to be recorded in the order-sheet dated

04.12.2006. No death certificate was placed on record. The complainant

did not attempt to proceed against petitioner No.2 in the complaint case

even after her name was deleted from the array of the parties in

Crl.M.C.No.2444-45/2005.

7. Order dated 30.05.2013 setting aside the summoning order

dated 01.05.2003 was passed after considering the merits of the petition.

Presence / absence of Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni as petitioner was not a

factor for determination of the issue. There is nothing on record, if any

time, Narinder Pal Kaur Sahni or Mohinder Pal Singh Sahni took any

advantage of the factum of death recorded in the order-sheet dated

04.12.2006.

8. Considering the facts and circumstances and the long drawn

litigation between the parties, I find no substance in

Crl.M.A.No.18611/2013 filed by the complainant (Harnam Singh) to

initiate any proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioners.

The application is dismissed.

9. Necessary correction will be carried out in the orders dated

04.12.2006 and 30.05.2013 indicating that the factum of death of Narinder

Pal Kaur Sahni was recorded due to inadvertence and she was alive on

04.12.2006.

10. Crl.M.A.No.1623/2014 stands disposed of accordingly.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 / tr