Varun Mehta vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
2025 Latest Caselaw 1619 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Varun Mehta vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal on 31 January, 2025

                                Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826




CRM-M-50563-2022                                                         1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

237                              CRM-M-50563-2022
                                 Date of decision: 31st January, 2025

Varun Mehta
                                                                   ...Petitioner
                                         Versus

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal
                                                                ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:    Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate and
            Mr. Sanjeev Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the respondent.

                   ***

MANISHA BATRA, J (ORAL):-

The instant petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C') has been filed by the petitioner seeking

quashing of order dated 22.02.2022 passed by the Court of Judicial

Magistrate Ist Class, Ambala in complaint No. COMI-107 of 2021, titled as

'Ashok Kumar Aggarwal VS. Varun Mehta', whereby the petitioner had been

ordered to be summoned to face proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of

this petition are that the aforementioned application/complaint under Section

340 of Cr.P.C. had been filed by the present respondent-complainant on the

allegations that he had filed a civil suit titled as Ashok Kumar Vs. Varun

Mehta, before the Court of Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ambala

seeking relief of permanent injunction. Written statement had been filed by

1 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826

CRM-M-50563-2022 2-

the present petitioner in that suit on 07.09.2022. In para No. 1 of the said

written statement, it was pleaded that the present petitioner was a tenant

under the respondent on payment of rent at the rate of Rs. 75,000/- per

month. Further, in an application given by the present petitioner at Police

Station Sadar, Ambala on 02.10.2020 as against the respondent-complainant,

he had admitted that he was a tenant under the complainant. The same fact

had been affirmed by him in a written compromise signed by him on

02.10.2020 itself at the police station. However, while filing reply to a

petition for ejectment of the present petitioner from the demised property

owned by the respondent, he took a plea that no relationship of landlord and

tenant existed between the parties and there was no question of payment of

any rent by the present petitioner to the respondent. The respondent by

submitting that the petitioner had made a false statement before the Court in

the form of reply submitted in the ejectment petition, prayed that

proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. be initiated against him and he be

summoned as an accused to face trial for making false depositions in the

Court.

3. To prove the allegations as levelled in the application-

complaint, the respondent appeared before the learned trial Court as CW-1

and produced on record exhibit C-1 copy of rent agreement. After hearing

learned counsel for the present respondent and considering the material

placed on record, learned judicial Magistrate observed that the present

petitioner had made contradictory statements in the written statement of the

civil suit filed against him by the respondent and the reply filed in the

ejectment petition filed against him and those contradictions had material

2 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826

CRM-M-50563-2022 3-

effect on the interest of the respondent-complainant. By further observing

that, it was expedient in the interest of justice to summon the present

petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate sent the

complaint to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate for summoning the

present petitioner. Feeling aggrieved from the order dated 22.02.2022, the

present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. It is argued by his counsel that the impugned order is not

sustainable in the eyes of law, as while passing the same, learned Magistrate

ignored the fact that no case for issuing summons against him had been

made out. It is argued that the respondent had entered into an agreement to

rent out his property to the petitioner for a period of three years commencing

from 01.10.2019. Due to outbreak of COVID-19, the rented shop had

remained closed thereby resulting into suffering of financial losses by the

petitioner. He was unable to pay the rent and planned to vacate the premises.

The respondent filed a civil suit for restraining him from vacating the same.

The respondent was already having three months rent in advance.

Subsequently, he filed ejectment petition. The petitioner in his reply has

taken plea regarding denial of relationship of landlord and tenant in view of

the fact that the rent agreement was an unregistered document and not

because of any other reason. There was no intention on the part of the

petitioner to take any false plea. He has already vacated the premises in

September, 2021. The provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. are not at all

attracted. While passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate did not

take this fact into consideration. Therefore, it is urged that the impugned

order is liable to be set aside.

                                   3 of 10

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826




CRM-M-50563-2022                                                          4-

5. Reply has been filed by the respondent. It is argued by learned

counsel for the respondent that the contradictory pleas as taken by the

present petitioner in two different litigations initiated by respondent as to

their relationship of landlord and tenant, certainly amount to making false

statement before the Court and attracted the provisions of Section 340 of

Cr.P.C.. It is therefore, argued that the impugned order does not deserve any

interference and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. At the outset, it would be proper to refer that there are two

conditions for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which may

be mentioned as under :

(i) Materials produced before the Court must make out a prima-facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in Clause-b(i) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 195 of Cr.P.C.; and

(ii) It is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offense.

7. Section 340 Cr.P.C. has provided for meticulous procedure

regarding initiation of the inquiry. The procedure as mentioned therein has

to be followed for making an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of

justice to file a complaint against the respondents in exercise of powers

conferred under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. It is well settled that in the process of

formation of opinion by the Court, it is expedient in the interest of justice

that an inquiry should be made into, the requirement should only be to have

a prime facie satisfaction of the offence which appears to have been

committed. It is open to the Court to hold a preliminary inquiry, though it is

not mandatory. In case, the Court is otherwise in a position to form such an

4 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826

CRM-M-50563-2022 5-

opinion, that it appears to the Court that an offence under Section 340

Cr.P.C has been committed, the Court may dispense with preliminary

inquiry and even it is not mandatory that a complaint should be filed as a

matter of course. In this regard, reference can be made to an authoritative

pronouncement of a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, which

had gone into scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C. in case cited as Iqbal Singh

Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another : 2005 (2) RCR

(Criminal) 178. Paragraph No. 23 of this judgment is relevant for the

purpose of this case, which reads as under:

"23. In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(i)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice." This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary inquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in195(i)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of

5 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826

CRM-M-50563-2022 6-

administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint."

8. The claim of the respondent is that the petitioner took false

pleas in the ejectment petition filed by him to the effect that the relationship

of landlord and tenant was not existing between the parties though in the

prior litigation, this fact had very much been admitted by him and by doing

so, the petitioner had committed the offence of perjury and therefore, inquiry

under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. was liable to be initiated against him, whereas

according to the petitioner, the ingredients for commission of offence of

perjury have not been attracted at all and no process could be issued against

him.

9. On giving due deliberation to the contentions raised by both the

sides and on a perusal of the documents placed on record, it is revealed that

two contradictory pleas with regard to relationship between the parties had

certainly been taken by the petitioner in the ejectment petition as well as in

the civil suit as filed by the respondent against him. He has admitted that he

had not vacated the demised premises as on the date when ejectment petition

had been filed. Meaning thereby, that the plea that no relationship of

landlord and tenant existed between themselves was certainly a false plea.

The argument that since the agreement between the parties was an

unregistered document, therefore, such plea had been taken, does not have

any force. It is, therefore, to be considered that the fact that the petitioner

had taken plea contradictory to the plea as taken in the suit previously filed

by the respondent, was very much within his knowledge and he had taken a

6 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826

CRM-M-50563-2022 7-

false/wrong plea in the ejectment petition.

10. However, the question that arises for consideration is as to

whether, the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted on account of false plea

so taken by him. For that purpose, in my considered opinion, the learned

Magistrate was still required to form an opinion that it was expedient in the

interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offence of false evidence

while having regard to overall factual matrix as well as probable

consequences of such prosecution. Reliance in this regard can be placed

upon K. Karunakaran vs. T.V. Eachara Warrier and another : (1978)

(1)SCC 18, wherein it was observed that the mere fact that a deponent has

made contradictory statements at two different stages in a judicial

proceedings is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution for a

perjury under Section 193 Cr.P.C. But it must be established that the

deponent has intentionally given a false statement in any stage of the judicial

proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any

stage of the judicial proceedings and such a prosecution for perjury should

be taken only if it is expedient in the interest of justice. Reliance can further

be placed upon Sasikala Pushpa vs. State of Tamil Nadu : 2019(6)SCC

477, wherein it was held that for prosecution under Section 195 read with

Section 340 Cr.P.C, perjury must be established. It was further observed that

before proceedings to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence

referred to Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., the Court must satisfy itself that "it

is expedient in the interest of justice". The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C.

shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice

requires and not in every case.

                               7 of 10

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826




CRM-M-50563-2022                                                         8-

11. In Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Bhanderi vs State of Gujarat : Law

Finder Doc Id # 2232945, the High Court of Gujarat had observed that the

object of Section 340 makes it clear that before lodging a complaint, it is

necessary that Court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of

justice to lodge the complaint. The mere fact that a person had made

contradictory statements in a judicial proceeding or a contradictory stand has

been taken during the proceedings, by itself, always would not be sufficient

to justify the prosecution, even if it appears that the proceeding has been

initiated on behalf of a person who alleges that it was not instructed by him,

but if it has been without any criminal intent or when anything has been

brought on record to show that any harm has been caused to him. Merely on

allegations or only to vindicate the personal vendetta, the Court would not

initiate any inquiry unless it comes to the conclusion that it is expedient in

the interest of justice. Unless, it is clearly brought on record that the

prosecution is in the interest of justice, Court cannot contemplate to move

the machinery against any private individual as the foundation of facts are

not prima facie made clear as the very intention of the accused becomes

doubtful.

12. Lastly, reliance can be placed upon Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhay

Shyam and another : 1971 (1) SCC (774), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had observed that the prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by

the Courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and

conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No-doubt

giving of false evidence and filing false affidavit is an evil which must be

curbed with the strong hand but to start prosecution of perjury and

8 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826

CRM-M-50563-2022 9-

frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful

material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is

considered expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent and

not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be

innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate

falsehood on a matter of substance and the Court should be satisfied that

there is reasonable foundation for the charge.

13. On applying the ratio of law, as laid down in the above

discussed authorities, to the present case, I am inclined to hold that no doubt

it stood prima facie established on record that the petitioner had made a false

averment in the form of reply to the effect that the relationship of landlord

and tenant did not exist between the parties though at the relevant time, it

was not so, but, the plea so taken is not of such nature, qua which it can be

considered to be expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioner should

be prosecuted for perjury. Litigation had already been initiated by the

respondent against the petitioner. The inter se grudges between the petitioner

and respondent as such were already there. In my opinion, the proceedings

under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. could not be made as an instrument by the

respondent to satisfy his personal vendetta. It cannot be ignored that the

recommendation for action under Section 340 should be at the satisfaction of

the Court making recommendation as to mens rea of the party sought to be

proceeded against as observed in Bibhuti Bhusan Bassu vs. Corporation of

Calcutta and others : 1982 Criminal Law General 909. The respondent has

however failed to demonstrate as to how, the averment made in the reply as

to denial of their relationship, could be considered to be made with the

9 of 10

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:015826

CRM-M-50563-2022 10-

intention to do any wrong to the respondent, even if, the same was to be

considered as a false averment. On considering the overall facts and

circumstances and in view of the position of law as discussed above, this

Court is satisfied that it was not expedient in the interest of justice that the

petitioner should have been prosecuted for the offences of perjury. It cannot

be stated that there was any deliberate and conscious attempt on the part of

the petitioner to misguide the Court and to interfere in the administration of

justice. Rather, this Court is of the opinion that it will be in the interest of

justice to avoid perpetual precipitation of the ill will amongst the parties by

giving a quietus to the proceedings so initiated. Accordingly, the impugned

order is set aside and the petition is allowed.

14. Since the main petition has been allowed, pending application,

if any, is rendered infructuous.

[MANISHA BATRA] JUDGE 31st January, 2025 Parveen Sharma

1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes

2. Whether reportable : Yes

10 of 10