[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sonia Tripathy vs State Of Odisha .... Opposite Party on 22 December, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR I.A. No.656 of 2025
(CRLREV No.420 of 2025)
Sonia Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. Milan Kanungo, Senior Advocate
along with Mr. A.K. Acharya, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha .... Opposite Party
Ms. B. Dash, ASC
Mr. H. S. Mishra, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:03.09.2025
DATE OF ORDER:22.12.2025
1.
Instant petition under Sections 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section
379 BNSS is at the behest of the informant, namely, opposite
party No.2 for a direction to initiate action against the
petitioner in terms thereof for having committed the offences
punishable under Sections 193, 195, 199 & 200 I.P.C.
expedient in the interest of justice on the grounds stated.
2. According to opposite party No.2, the action under Section
340 Cr.P.C. is necessary, since, the petitioner has filed multiple
false affidavits in the proceedings before this Court for self and
co-accused husband pending disposal with the plea that the
details of the chargesheet have not been revealed, rather,
containing false and misleading averments and in so far as the
case at hand is concerned, the same is evident from the list of
the dates and events described by her. It is further pleaded that
the accused husband is claimed to be the Director of Lumex
Resources Pvt. Ltd., a fact, which is outrightly false, inasmuch
as, he was never holding any such position in the company.
The statement that the partnership firm managed by the
petitioner and her husband had been amalgamated with the
company is again a falsehood, for the reason that both the
accused persons claimed such amalgamation by a Board
Resolution to that effect, which was later ascertained to be
incorrect and the partnership firm still exists independently as
on date. It is alleged by opposite party No.2 that the averments
in the revision petition are completely false with regard to the
claim of the petitioner about the company having been formed.
It is also alleged that the date of remand has been falsely stated
and the same is also misleading on a bare perusal of the
pleading on record. Referring to the facts pleaded further, it is
stated by opposite party No.2 that there is suppression and
misrepresentation of material facts, since no Official
Liquidator was ever appointed and no such order of liquidation
was passed since because the Resolution Professional was
appointed by the NCLT, who during forensic audit had figured
out that there has not been any business undertaken by the
company and the amount was misappropriated through various
other shell companies as there were nil assets and the company
was dissolved without the process of liquidation. It is pleaded
that the NCLT, in the order of dissolution of the company, had
categorically mentioned that the aggrieved parties shall be at
liberty to continue or to take appropriate legal recourse against
the Directors. Furthermore, it is alleged that the conditions of
the agreement stipulates that the loan availed is to be utilized
for Chrome export while the reports of the Department of
Customs have clarified that there has not been any such export
either by the partnership firm or the company owned by the
petitioner and her husband and not only that, the amount of
misappropriation (personal and joint liability) has been falsely
stated to be Rs.70 lac, which is factually incorrect. According
to opposite party No.2, there has been misrepresentation of
facts by the petitioner and the co-accused with regard to the
documents pertaining clientele base revealed to them and
besides that, the investigation unearthed the fact that the
documents showing the transactions to have been forged and
fabricated and that apart, one of the shell companies was
formed after the loan was availed from opposite party No.2.
With other facts pleaded, it is finally alleged by opposite party
No.2 that the petitioner has misled the Court with an intention
to defraud and interfere with the administration of justice and
hence, she is liable to be prosecuted with a complaint filed
against her having committed offenses punishable under
Section(s) 191 and 192 I.P.C. The petitioner is also alleged of
having filed forged medical documents while seeking bail and
also fabricated rental agreements and considering the same, as
per opposite party No.2, it is case of fraud on record and
therefore, the petitioner is needed to be prosecuted for all such
false declarations made, which is an offence in view of Section
199 I.P.C.
3. Heard Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate along with
Mr. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 besides
Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.
4. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 would
submit that it is a clear case of misrepresentation of facts for
filling number of false affidavits by the petitioner and
therefore, the Court is to take judicial notice of the same and
direct filing of a complaint against her for the facts narrated
hereinabove as she is liable for prosecution for the false
evidence furnished. In support of such contention, Mr. Mishra,
cited a decision of the Apex Court in Kusha Duruka Vrs.
State of Odisha in Criminal Appeal No.303 of 2024 decided
on 19th January, 2024 to contend that anyone could take
recourse to fraud and interfere with the judicial dispensation
and administration of justice and such persons are required to
be sternly dealt with not only to punish them for the wrong
done but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts.
The contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel is that the
petitioner and her husband brazenly indulged in fraud and
misappropriated the loan amount received from opposite party
No.2 and therefore, the F.I.R. was lodged to set the criminal
action into motion. It has been the claim of Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel that the petitioner was a party to the alleged fraud and
misappropriation along with her husband for availing loan
from opposite party No.2 and ultimately, after having managed
the loan with misrepresentation of facts, she committed further
mischief without any intention to invest the same, for which, it
had been received. The allegation is that while challenging the
criminal action further fraud has been committed misleading
the Court with several false affidavits filed. Under such
circumstances, it is finally pleaded that the petitioner being
equally responsible for the misrepresentation and fraud with
false averments being made and she is required to be
prosecuted with a complaint lodged by this Court in terms of
Section 340 Cr.P.C.
5. On the contrary, Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate and
Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner denied the
claim of opposite party No.2 that there have been false
affidavits filed with suppression and misrepresentation of
material facts by the petitioner to invite any such action under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. The contention is that there is no false
evidence submitted from the side of the petitioner, who in
order to justify her claim for discharge has relied upon the
police papers, such as, FIR and the chargesheet. It has been the
specific case of the informant in the FIR that the partnership
firm was alleged to have been merged with a company in the
year, 2019 with the assets and liabilities of the same being
taken over and it has also been claimed and pleaded about a
debt settlement agreement entered between them and opposite
party No.2 and with the above averments on record, according
to Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate, it would not be just
and proper to allege that they have falsely averred and filed
affidavits in support thereof. It is contended that the defence of
the petitioner is alleged to be false and such false claim has
been the misrepresentation at the instance of the petitioner,
which is again challenged by Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior
Advocate contending that the same would not amount to
furnishing false evidence inviting any such criminal action.
The further contention is that on account of the statements of
the witnesses recorded during investigation, it has been alleged
by opposite party No.2 that the loan advanced by her was not
utilized for the purpose it was availed but was misappropriated
and hence, the chargesheet was filed and in such a situation,
challenging the same and framing of charge, if defence plea is
advanced by her, it is not to be treated as pleading with
falsehood before the Court and therefore, a proceeding under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated. In so far as the
synopsis alleged to be false and misleading filed in Criminal
Revision No.421 of 2025, any such discrepancy therein has
been by inadvertence without intention to mislead the Court.
According to Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate, the name
of a particular person wrongly mentioned as the Director of the
company is also an inadvertent mistake, which is a matter of
record so also about the order of liquidation instead of
dissolution of the company, which has been responded to by an
affidavit and therefore, under such circumstances, the
petitioner having no any intention to cause hindrance in the
administration of justice, action under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
cannot be insisted upon by opposite party No.2. Lastly, it is
submitted that the petitioner has not made any declaration
regarding the other proceedings pending or disposed of in the
affidavit filed since the subject matter of challenge herein was
never before this Court for consideration and hence, the
petitioner under a bonafide belief has not revealed the same
about the cases filed earlier for having no connection with the
cause of action at present and therefore, opposite party No.2
demanding action under Section 340 Cr.P.C is misconceived,
rather, it is an act to intentionally harass her by filing frivolous
applications in the guise of Section 340 Cr.P.C.
6. Perused the reply affidavits filed by both the sides, Mr.
Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 besides the
decision mentioned herein before relied on an order of this
Court dated 5th October, 2023 in I.A. No.1045 of 2023 arising
out of BLAPL No.6107 of 2023, wherein, a similar allegation
made by opposite party No.2 with the claim that the petitioner
pleaded for interim bail on medical condition as advised by a
doctor and therein, a report was called for and the report
revealed that the signature of the concerned Assistant Professor
of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack found in the
OPD Card did not match on verification, hence, a forged
medical document was filed and considering such conduct,
action was sought for against her but with a lenient view taken,
the matter was closed on the ground that she is in custody
though expressing concern over a false claim advanced with a
plea for bail.
7. Having considered the facts pleaded on record and rival
contentions of the parties, the Court is to determine, whether
any such action is necessary in terms of Section 340 Cr.P.C.
accepting the plea of opposite party No.2 that the petitioner is
prima facie guilty of interfering with the administration of
justice having filed the affidavits and averments made and
pleaded on record for being false or discrepant?
8. The primary allegation is that the petitioner pleaded on
record facts which are untrue and it has been false evidence
and therefore, an action is necessary in terms of Section 340
Cr.P.C. Without elaborating the facts already narrated herein
before, the Court is inclined to consider, if a case is made out
by opposite part No.2 for initiation of a criminal prosecution
against the petitioner, who has approached by filing the
revision challenging the rejection order under Section 239
Cr.P.C of the learned court below while dealing with C.T. Case
No.100(A) of 2023. In course of hearing, both sides cited case
laws in favour of and against the contentions advanced with the
plea of the petitioner that no action under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
is needed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
and that of opposite party No.2 in favour of a prosecution with
a complaint filed against her alleging false evidence pleaded on
oath. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2
placed reliance on the following decisions, such as, M/s A-One
Industrial Vrs. Shri D.P. Garg 1999 CrLJ 4743; Pritish
Vrs. State of Maharashtra & others AIR 2002 SC 236;
Sanjeev Kumar Mittal Vrs. The State of Delhi HC in Test.
Case. No.19 of 2004 dated 18th November, 2010; Sejalben
Tejasbhai Chovatiya Vrs. State of Gujrat of Gujarat HC in
Special Criminal Application (Quashing) No.7666 of 2016
disposed of on 20th October, 2016:2016 SCC Online Guj
6333; Union of India and others Vrs. Haresh Virumal
Milani of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition (ST.) No.4899
of 2017 dated 17th April, 2017; Kenneth Desa and another
Vrs. Gopal of Bombay HC, Nagpur Bench in Criminal
Application No.1115 of 2007 disposed of on 11th July, 2007.
In addition to the above, one more decision in State
represented by Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB,
Visakhapatnam Vrs. Eluri Srinivasa Chakravarthi and
others 2025 INSC 758 is referred to by Mr. Mishra, learned
counsel with the submission that the revision is liable to be
dismissed, however, their lies a need for appropriate action
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for the false affidavits on record
received from the side of the petitioner.
9. Referring to the affidavits filed and the relevant documents
produced in Court, Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate and
Mr. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner submit that
there has been no false evidence adduced by the petitioner
since the revision is filed questioning the legality of the order
declining her discharge and on the ground that the dispute is
entirely civil in nature and the allegations in the FIR lodged by
opposite party No.2 have been merely referred to while
defending the charges levelled and therefore, it would not be
just and proper to allege malafide or leading false evidence
inviting an action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In reply and
response to the above, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite
party No.2 submits that the petitioner has been guilty of
making false statements with affidavits filed not only herein
but in other proceedings as well and has in fact taken recourse
to fraud in order to deflect the course of judicial proceeding
and it is with an oblique motive and such a conduct has
interfered with the administration of justice and again cites the
decision in Kusha Duruka (supra).
10. In Moti Lal Songara Vrs. Prem Prakash @ Papu and
another 2013 (9) SCC 199, the Apex Court considering
concealment of facts observed that Court is not laboratory
where children come to play and further concluded that anyone
who takes recourse to method of suppression in a Court of law,
is, in actuality, playing fraud with the Court and the maxim
'supressio veri, expressio falsi'-suppression of the truth is
equivalent to the expression of falsehood gets attracted. In the
above decision, it is also observed that law is well settled that a
litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or touches
the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to
any relief, interim or final. Suppression of material facts from
the court of law is actually playing fraud with the court.
11. Whether reiterating the allegations from FIR either as a
defence or explanation with averments while challenging a
criminal prosecution amounts to leading false evidence? In the
case at hand, what has been revealed to opposite party No.2
and reproduced in the FIR with the allegation that she was
misled, misrepresented and subjected to fraud have been
referred to while pleading that the averments are in a way
explanatory and a defence against criminal action and against
the aforesaid backdrop, the Court is inclined to reply to the
above question formulated. Any such defence with reference to
the facts alleged in the FIR would be false evidence while
questioning the correctness of the rejection order denying
discharge and for an action under Section 340 Cr.P.C depends
on the facts pleaded on record. It is well known that an FIR
merely sets the criminal law into motion and it contains
allegations that need to be investigated and proven in a court of
law and reiterating such unproven allegations as a part of a
defence strategy is typically experienced as presenting a
version of events, not necessarily amounting to false evidence.
The statements made in the FIR or repeated in an application
challenging prosecution may have to be considered as
contention of a case and not formal evidence in the strict sense
until they are tested through a legal process and by way of a
trial. The law provides significant leeway for a person to
present his defence and the courts are generally hesitant to
initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. unless there is
clear and convincing evidence of a deliberate intent to fabricate
or present demonstrably false material to mislead the court.
Such burden of proving an offence lies with the prosecution. In
fact, according to the Court, Section 340 Cr.P.C requires mens
rea which deals with an action for perjury and contempt related
to false evidence initiated when the Court believes that it is
expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute a person for
intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence
during a judicial proceeding. Merely repeating an existing
allegation in a legal challenge does not automatically lead an
action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In summary, the act of
repeating allegations from an FIR in a legal challenge is
usually considered a procedural and strategic move in a
defence, not an act of leading false evidence, however, it can
be demonstrated that the defence is knowingly using false
information with the intent to mislead the court relied upon the
same and under such circumstances, powers under Section 340
Cr.P.C. could potentially be invoked although such cases are
rare and dependent on specific circumstances. Furthermore, in
the humble view of the Court, an accused has a right to raise a
defence and in the event, challenged the prosecution with an
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and therein, if any
affidavit is filed and the same is referable to the facts alleged in
the FIR may be as a means of defence is not to branded as false
evidence and herein, according to the petitioner, the contest is
to the framing of charge on the premise that no criminal action
to lie being a civil dispute between her and opposite party
No.2. In such a situation, the Court is to be cautious in
initiating an action under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
12. As it is normally experienced, perjury proceedings are
considered not at the interim stage, rather, at the conclusion of
a proceeding or trial wherein false evidence was received
allowing the accused a full of opportunity to present his
defence. Nonetheless, if there is clear and conspicuous material
on record received during a judicial proceeding which
unerringly suggests false evidence to have been led by a party,
a court may even dispense with preliminary enquiry and
straightaway initiate an action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. upon
a prima facie satisfaction that a formal complaint is necessary
to meet the situation. Even, it has been held by the Apex Court
that merely making contradictory statements in a judicial
proceeding by itself is not always sufficient to justify a
prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 IPC. While dealing
with the scope of initiating proceeding under Section 340
Cr.P.C., the Apex Court in Amarsang Nathaji Vrs. Hardik
Harshadbhai Patel 2016 SCC Online SC 1316 held and
concluded that merely for a fact that a person has made
contradictory statement in a proceeding is not always
considered sufficient to proceed against him with a complaint
filed but it must be shown that such person intentionally has
given false statement or fabricated evidence for the purpose of
using the same at any stage of the proceedings and not only
that, even after an opinion is found in favour of an action, it has
to be concluded that the same is absolutely necessary in the
interest of justice. In Ram Chandra and others Vrs. State of
Rajasthan and another in CRL.A.No. 1478 of 2025, the
Supreme Court held that veracity of statements in the pleadings
alleged to be false can be tested during trial and for that, action
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. would not be a proper response. It
has been held therein that whether a statement made in the
pleading is incorrect or false has to be considered and decided
during trial itself upon closure of evidence and at the time of
final determination of the suit and unless, such exercise is
completed, it is difficult to say that the averments made therein
to be false and constitutes an offence attracting penal action.
13. In Iqbal Singh Marwah and another Vrs. Meenakshi
Marwah and another (2005) 4 SCC 370, while dealing with
an issue, whether, a preliminary enquiry is stipulated under
Section 340 Cr.P.C, it has been concluded by the Apex Court
that in view of the language employed therein, a Court is not
bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an
offence referred to in Section 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. as the said
provision is conditioned by the words 'Court is of opinion that
it is expedient in the interest of justice' which goes on to show
the intention of the legislature and this expediency is normally
to be judged by a court by weighing not the magnitude of the
injury suffered by the person affected by a forgery or forged
document or for any such mischief but having regard to the
effect or impact such commission of offence has upon
administration of justice. In Pritish Vrs. State of
Maharashtra & Others 2002 (1) SCC 253, it is held by the
Apex Court that the procedure of preliminary enquiry
envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not meant to decide the
guilt or innocence of a party against whom the proceedings are
to be taken before the Magistrate and the scope of such
proceedings confined to whether based on the materials
available and it is expedient in the interest of justice that the
action is really needed.
14. On a reading of the above case laws, it can be concluded
that reiterating allegations from an FIR as a defence or
explanation either justifying the same to be not untrue while
challenging a criminal prosecution does not automatically
amount to leading false evidence inviting action under Section
340 Cr.P.C. It is not that every false or contradictory statement
is sufficient to initiate perjury proceedings but a Court must be
satisfied that it is expedient in the interest of justice to hold an
enquiry and that apart, falsity must be related to a matter of
substance affecting the administration of justice and before any
such action, even a preliminary enquiry may be dispensed with,
which is not mandatory and for that purpose, impact of false
evidence on the administration of justice is to be weighed, not
an injury to the individual. Besides the above, falsity must be
deliberate and conscious and not merely an inaccurate
statement or denial. Inconsistencies may be explained during
trial or in a proceeding pending before the court and are not
sufficient on their own to start proceeding under Section 340
Cr.P.C.
15. In a recent judgment in James Kunjwal Vrs. State of
Uttarakhand and another in SLP Criminal No.9783 of 2023
dated 13th August, 2024, the Apex Court observed that mere
denial or inaccurate statements do not attract offence of perjury
and referring to the judicial pronouncements culled out the
following principles, such as, (i) the Court should be of prima
facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground
to initiate proceedings against a person, who has allegedly
made a false statement; (ii) such proceeding should be initiated
when doing the same is expedient in the interest of justice to
punish the delinquent and not merely because of inaccuracy
statements that may be innocent or immaterial; (iii) there
should be deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance; (iv)
the Court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation
for the charge with distinct evidence and not mere suspension;
and (v) the proceeding should be initiated in exceptional
circumstances for instance when a party has perjured
themselves to beneficial orders from the Court and finally
observed that prosecution in such cases would be unjust if the
above conditions are not satisfied.
16. In the case at hand, the information disseminated to
opposite party No.2 alleged to be false and fraud to have been
alleged against the petitioner to defend the action and to claim
that the case for discharge is made out and referring to the
same, it has been alleged that there is false information or
affidavit filed hence an action under Section 340 Cr.P.C is
necessary. The FIR is lodged against the petitioner and co-
accused husband with whatever allegations made therein and
according to the Court, such allegations are to be subjected to
scrutiny during trial. Even though, there has been a chargesheet
filed against the accused persons with a conclusion reached at
that both of them have played fraud on opposite party No.2,
denying which, discharge is claimed and it has been rejected by
the learned court below, truthfulness or otherwise of the same
are to be tested on the floor of the Court. The averments or
contentions on record from the side of the petitioner as against
the aforesaid background, in considered view of the Court,
would not be sufficient a ground to initiate action under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. A stand or defence in the lines of the plea
of an accused alleged to be false by the informant even leading
to the filing of a chargesheet by itself should not be considered
enough for an action of perjury. In a case of present nature,
where the petitioner is still to face the trial and when on the one
hand, certain events claimed to have happened and the same
are alleged to be false according to opposite party No.2 and for
that the FIR was lodged and with the closure of investigation,
the chargesheet is filed is a matter to be threshed out during
trial. The defence of the petitioner or probable defence during
trial justifying the facts pleaded on record even based on the
information of the FIR lodged by opposite party No.2 are the
averments or contentions before the Court made demanding
discharge and for that, action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against
the petitioner is not a viable option. Any such disclosure which
ought to have been made as expected by opposite party No.2 is
like demanding something which could possibly be prejudicial
to the rights and interest of the petitioner. In fact, demanding
the revelation from an accused necessarily to support the view
point of the informant in anticipation that the disclosure would
be consistent with the findings of the chargesheet is certainly to
prejudice the former before commencement of trial. Only if
false evidence has been adduced and it easily noticeable
without enquiry, in such cases, action under Section 340
Cr.P.C. is inevitable.
17. In D.P. Garv (supra), action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has
been upheld since a false affidavit was filed claiming that there
is an interim order of stay from a court which was found to be
incorrect upon verification. In such a situation, when there was
no such interim order and falsely pleaded on oath, the Delhi
High Court therefore held that for the filing of such a false
affidavit, a charge under Section 193 IPC is perfectly justified.
The above decision cited by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for
opposite party No.2 is inapplicable since the affidavit filed
therein was found to be false and a fraud was played upon the
Court. In Pritish (supra) cited from the side of opposite party
No.2 has been discussed earlier which centered around the
need for a preliminary enquiry or otherwise before an action
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and hence, needs no reiteration.
Similarly, in peculiar facts presented to the Court, it was held
in Sanjeev Kumar Mittal (supra) that police investigation is
necessary with respect to the false evidence received, which is
again distinguishable. The other case laws cited by Mr. Mishra,
learned counsel for opposite party No.2 are distinguishable on
facts. According to the Court, what constitutes the basis for an
action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. depends on facts and
circumstances of each particular case. If it is crystal clear that a
false affidavit is filed and with or without enquiry, the same is
found to be false, an action with a complaint may be filed but
again it has to be held that such action under Section 340
Cr.P.C. is indispensable and expedient in the interest of justice.
In a case of present kind, where charges have been levied
against the petitioner on the basis of allegations made in the
FIR and with a concluded investigation and the defence is
referable to the same events taking place between the parties
alleging that the dispute is entirely civil in nature, the Court,
regard being had to the settled position of law discussed herein
before, reaches at a conclusion that all such information or
facts pleaded on record in defence are to be treated as
averments or contentions opposing the claim of opposite party
No.2 at whose instance the criminal prosecution has been
initiated. If particular facts are alleged to be false by opposite
party No.2 and the FIR since lodged and the same is defended
by the petitioner or undefended as the case may be is a fact in
issue to be examined with a decision at the end of the trial but
to allege that on the basis of the information shared with the
Court which is not yet proven to be correct or otherwise or on
the strength of such unproven facts claimed to be false alleging
the conduct of the petitioner being fraudulent with a demand to
initiate action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. would not be a proper
course of action and therefore, it is concluded by the Court that
lodging of a complaint in terms thereof with any such plea of
opposite party No.2 being entertained is not required and
expedient in the interest of justice. But, the Court is of the
view that the petitioner is needed to reveal the details of the
cases earlier filed and pending before Court and also ensuring
that the inaccurate facts pleaded on record either removed or
replaced with a properly constituted affidavit filed.
18. Accordingly, it is ordered.
19. In the result, the I.A. stands dismissed for the reasons
discussed herein above.
20. In the circumstances, there is no order as to the costs.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Rojina
Designation: Junior Stenographer
