An oral judgment dismissing a writ petition challenging a Small Causes Court order directing initiation of proceedings for making a false statement under IPC Section 193. The Court held such facts are for trial and cannot be decided at the threshold.
The operative part of the impugned order is not stayed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
abs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2092 OF 1999
Mukund Balwant Athawale .. Petitioners
Mr. V.Y. Sanglikar for the petitioner. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni i/b Mr. P.S. Dani for respondent no.1. Mr. K.V. Saste, A.P.P. for the State.
CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, JJ. DATE : 3RD NOVEMBER 2009
ORAL JUDGMENT :
2
3
applicant no.19 in the motion for restoration of the standard rent application, was not a party to the original standard rent application inasmuch as he had not signed the original standard rent application and as such his name was struck off (scored out) in the standard rent application itself. Consequently, he had no authority to file the motion for restoration. The learned Judge also noticed that in the motion for restoration the present petitioner had made a categorical statement that he was one of the applicants in the standard rent application which was factually incorrect inasmuch he had not signed the standard rent application and his name was also physically struck out. On discovery of these facts, the present petitioner tendered an apology to the Court for making an incorrect statement in the motion for restoration that he was an applicant in the standard rent application. That apology was not accepted and while dismissing the standard rent application the Court directed the Registrar of the Court to initiate proceedings for making false statement before it. The order was impugned before the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court which dismissed the appeal. That order is impugned in this writ petition.
4
under a bonafide mistake. He also submitted that Mr. B.K. Juvekar, Advocate who had filed the standard rent application died few months before the dismissal thereof and the new advocate about to be engaged could not be engaged and, therefore, the petitioner was not aware that he was not an applicant in the standard rent application. He further submitted that for the purpose of making out an offence under section 191 of the I.P.C. it was necessary that the person who made a false statement on oath, must either know or believe the statement to be false. He further submitted that the false statement must be made intentionally. The petitioner had no intention to make a false statement. Further more, though the statement was incorrect, the petitioner did not know nor did he believe that the statement was incorrect but he was under the bonafide belief that he was a party to the standard rent application.
5
statement to be false or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true cannot be decided unless the evidence is adduced. In the circumstances, at the threshold it cannot be said that the order of the learned Judge directing the Court Registrar to make a complaint is incorrect.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitioner can challenge a directing order to institute proceedings for making a false statement before the Small Causes Court at the threshold.
Whether the question of knowledge and intention to make a false statement is a question of fact for trial and not suitable for decision at the threshold.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mukund Balwant Athawale
Prakash Pandurang Damle
State of Maharashtra
D.G. KARNIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
