Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramswaroop Gupta vs Civil Judge Class Ii on 23 January, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1578 (1)
M.Cr.C. No. 14439 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 23rd OF JANUARY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 14439 of 2022
RAMSWAROOP GUPTA
Versus
CIVIL JUDGE CLASS II AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Maheshwari, Advocate for the applicant.
Dr. Anjali Gyanani, Government Advocate for the State.
ORDER
This application, under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, has been filed seeking
quashment of Criminal Case Number 4371/2009 pending before the Court of
CGM, Gwalior.
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that the applicant was a tenant.
During the pendency of suit, applicant made a false statement that he had
already handed over vacant possession of suit property to the landlord. On the
basis of said submission, the suit was dismissed with regard to payment of
arrears of rent. An appeal was preferred and with a view to determine the
controversy, a local commission was appointed by the appellate Court. The
local Commissioner submitted his report on 04-07-1988 that the defendant is
still in possession of the suit premises. In view of the report submitted by the
Commissioner, an amendment application was filed before the first appellate
Court seeking amendment in the pleadings by the plaintiff. Plaintiffs wanted a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1578 (2)
decree for eviction as well as arrears of rent. The application for amendment
was rejected. However, the appeal was allowed and arrears of rent was
directed to be paid from 1/9/1970 to 30/04/1971.
3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree thereby refusing
eviction, Second Appeal No. 17/1990 was filed. It was found that the applicant
had not surrendered possession and had not paid the arrears. The appeal was
allowed by an order dated 3-9-1996. On a review filed by the applicant, which
was registered as MCC Number 621/1996, it was found by the Division Bench
of this Court that the second appeal was decided without adverting to
substantial questions of law framed and without answering the same and,
accordingly, the order was recalled, and the appeal was listed for hearing again.
Thereafter, none appeared for the applicant in spite of repeated service of
notice, and ultimately, Second Appeal No. 17/1990 was allowed by a
coordinate bench of this Court by judgment dated 04-01-2007, with the
following directions:-
14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed and a decree to be passed
in the following terms:
(a) Decree for eviction against the defendant from the suit premises
be passed and the defendant be directed to handover the vacant
possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs;
(b) Defendant / respondent is directed to pay a sum of Rs.18,000/-
(Rupees eighteen thousand only) along with interest at the rate of
6% per annum till the date of payment towards arrears of rent to the
appellants. The amount be paid by the defendant / respondent within
a period of four months and thereafter rent for the suit premises be
paid every month till the date of handing over the vacant possession
to the plaintiffs; and
(c) Separate proceedings for contempt of Court be drawn and
initiated against the respondent for the act of making a false
statement by the Registrar of this Bench and the matter of placed for
consideration before the appropriate Bench."
Thereafter, Contempt Petition No. 3 of 2007 was registered and by order dated
23/06/08, the Trial Court was directed to register criminal proceedings against
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1578 (3)
applicant for committing perjury, accordingly, the complaint has been filed.
4. Challenging the said complaint, it is submitted by counsel for the
applicant that the applicant is in the last stage of his age. The false submission
was made in the year 1971. Fifty-three long years have passed, and therefore,
under these circumstances, the continuation of the criminal case is
unwarranted.
5. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
6. It is a case where the applicant had played fraud on the trial court by
making false submission that the suit premises was already surrendered. The
suit was instituted on 07-05-1971, and a submission was made by applicant that
he had already surrendered possession on 31-08-1970, i.e., prior to the
institution of the suit. The said submission was ultimately found to be incorrect,
and it was found that possession was never surrendered by the applicant.
Making a false submission before the Court is a serious act requiring
prosecution. Furthermore, counsel for applicant could not point out any
provision of law which gives any exemption, to a person of old age, from
prosecution for the offences committed by him.
7. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that no
case is made out warranting interference. The application fails and is hereby
dismissed.
8. The offence was committed by the applicant sometimes in the year 1971.
Fifty-three long years have passed, but still, the matter is not adjudicated. The
Supreme Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs.
State of U.P. and Others decided on 29.02.2024 in Criminal Appeal
No.3589/2023 , has held that constitutional Courts should not direct the district
judiciary to expedite the hearing, but in exceptional circumstances such
directions can be issued.
9. This application under Section 482 of CrPC is pending since 2022.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:1578 (4)
Second Appeal No. 17/1990 was decided by a coordinate bench of this Court
on 04-01-2007. The complaint was filed on 18-05-2009. Fifteen years have
passed after the institution of the criminal complaint. Under these
circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that it is an exceptional case
in which a direction for early disposal is required.
10. Accordingly, applicant is directed to appear before the trial court
positively on 14-02-2025. If he fails to appear before the trial court on the said
date, then a warrant of arrest shall be issued (no summons or bailable warrant is
required as the applicant is aware of this order). If the arrest warrant is issued,
then Superintendent of Police, Gwalior shall ensure that the arrest warrant is
positively executed without any failure on his part. The trial Court is directed to
conclude the complaint case within a period of six months from today, and no
adjournment on any ground whatsoever shall be granted to the applicant or to
the prosecution.
11. With aforesaid observations, the application is dismissed.
12. Office is directed to immediately send a copy of this order to the trial
Court for necessary information and compliance.
(G.S.Ahluwalia)
Judge
(and)
