Dismissed

Darshan Dev Duggal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Jun 2007APPW/145/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application filed by an applicant in person, the High Court addressed false allegations in an affidavit that the judges ordered withdrawal of a threat. The court accepted the applicant withdrawal, rejected a prayer to file a complaint against an advocate, and declined to strike out a paragraph recording an undertaking from the applicant's order.

What did the court decide?

Prayers to file criminal complaint and to strike out paragraph from order dated 22.3.2007 rejected; applicant directed to delete false statement from affidavit.

Darshan Dev Duggal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.145 OF 2007
 IN

¶4

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2019 OF 2006

¶5

 Darshan Dev Duggal .. Applicant.
 Vs.

¶6

 State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶7

 Applicant present in person.
 Mr.Manish Kenia i/b N.K.Dayashandan for respondent
 no.4.

¶8

 Mr.C.U.Singh i/b Sanjay Udeshi for respondent no.5.
 Mrs.U.V.Kejariwal APP for the State.

¶9

CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI &
D.B.BHOSALE, JJ.
DATED : 6TH JUNE, 2007.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

 . Heard the applicant in person, learned

¶12

 counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 and learned A.P.P.
 for the State.

¶13

 2. Mr.Singh, learned senior counsel for

¶14

 respondent no.5 at the outset invited our attention
 to paragraph 14 of the application and raised strong
 objection to the statements made therein. Paragraph
 14 of the civil application reads thus:

¶15

 "14. That after the order had been passed
 by this Honourable Court on 22nd March, 2007
 advocate Sanjay Udeshi requested the court to
 ask the petitioner to withdraw his complaint
 lodged against him at the Colaba police
 station. At this, the lady judge on the
 bench said, "You withdraw your complaint".
 The petitioner told Her Honour that his
 conscience did not permit him to withdraw the

¶16

:2:

¶17

 complaint. Her Honour said, "I will then not
 sign my order."

¶18

 3. He submitted that the utterances in paragraph

¶19

 14 attributed to the court are not only false but
 incorporation of such utterances in the application
 is contemptuous. We categorically remember that the
 applicant on his own undertook to withdraw the
 complaint filed against the advocate and that neither
 of us stated that "I will then not sign my order".
 Having confronted with this the applicant prayed for
 withdrawal of the utterances mentioned in paragraph
 14 unconditionally. He submitted that these

¶20

 utterances were mentioned due to some confusion in
 his mind. His statement is accepted and he is
 directed to delete the objectionable part from
 paragraph 14 within one week from today. We

¶21

 deprecate the practise of attributing such utterances
 to the court. However, looking to the age of the
 petitioner, who appears in person, and unconditional
 withdrawal of the statement, we would not like to
 precipitate the matter further.

¶22

 4. In this application the applicant has made
 the following prayers:

¶23

 "(a) That a complaint U/s.193 I.P.C. be
 filed against advocate Sanjay Udeshi for
 knowingly making the following false
 statement during the hearing of the Writ
 Petition on 22nd March, 2007:-

¶24

:3:

¶25

 "The Petitioner sold his 450 shares of Tamil
 Nadu Dadha Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to Shri
 Vaman Puranik on 20.12.1991. The petitioner
 handed over the share certificate to Shri
 Vaman Puranik on 20.12.1991 alongwith two
 duly executed Share Transfer Forms and
 received from his cheque No.401362 for
 Rs.20,587/- dated 31.12.1991."

¶26

 (b) That the investigation of cheque
 No.401362 for Rs.20,587/- dated 31.12.1991 be
 handed over to the Detection of Crime Branch
 (C.I.D.)

¶27

 (c) That this Honourable Court’s order
 dated 22nd March, 2007 in the above Writ
 Petition be corrected by striking out its
 paragraph No.8."

¶28

 5. Let us note that this application is filed by
 the applicant after more than a month in a disposed
 of writ petition. The writ petition came to be
 disposed of by speaking order dated 22.3.2007. In
 this order we have recorded the statement/s of
 learned counsel for the parties as also of the
 applicant. The statement, allegedly made by
 Mr.Udeshi, learned advocate, does not find place in
 our order dated 22.3.2007. Mr.Singh, learned senior
 counsel holding for Mr.Sanjay Udeshi, advocate on
 record submits that no such statement as alleged by
 the applicant was ever made by Mr.Udeshi. He
 submitted that the statements made by Mr.Udeshi are
 clearly reflected in the order dated 22.3.2007. We
 are in agreement with the submissions of Mr.Singh.
 In the circumstances prayer clause (a) in the

¶29

:4:

¶30

 application is rejected. Insofar as prayer clause
 (b) is concerned, the same is misconceived and devoid
 of any merits and is rejected as such.

¶31

 6. The applicant also seeks to striking out
 paragraph 8 in the order dated 22nd March, 2007.
 Paragraph 8 of the order reads thus:

¶32

 "8. We are also informed that the
 petitioner has filed a complaint against
 Mr.Udeshi, learned counsel for respondent 5,
 at the Colaba Police Station. The petitioner
 undertakes that he will withdraw the
 complaint which he has made against
 Mr.Udeshi, the learned counsel for respondent
 5."

¶33

 7. We have recorded the undertaking of the
 petitioner given by him in the open court. This
 undertaking was given by the petitioner/applicant
 voluntarily and, therefore, we find no reason to
 delete this paragraph, as prayed for, from our order
 dated 22.3.2007. In the circumstances all the three
 prayers made by the applicant in this application are
 rejected. The criminal application is disposed of.

¶34

 (SMT.RANJANA DESAI, J.)

¶35

 (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)

Darshan Dev Duggal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Darshan Dev Duggal v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suman Sambhaji Shinde and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Avlon Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chandrakala P. Gouda and Anr.

Buwaji Sahadeo Hazare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Jamila Iqbal Husain Sayyed Ali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Darshan Dev Duggal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hanumant Jagannath Dolas Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.