Dismissed¶22

Avr Public School and Another v. State of Haryana and Other

Punjab & Haryana HC3 May 2025CRM-M/45431/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-45431-2024; Punjab and Haryana High Court; Anoop Chitkara; AVR Public School; AVR Education Society; Gurugram; Section 379 BNSS; launch of prosecution; perjury; misrepresentation of Court; CWP No.10550 of 2024; CWP No.9327 of 2024 (Vijay Singh Kataria Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.); CWP No.4397 of 2024; Vijay Singh Kataria; Akash Kataria; Bimla Devi; Daya Nand; Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Rules, 2012; frivolous litigation; fictitious litigation; two brothers fighting in Courts; notice refused; heavy costs refrained; petition dismissed; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

None — the Court declined to issue notice and dismissed the petition; all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. ¶22

Avr Public School and Another Vs State of Haryana and Other — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the Court declined to issue notice and dismissed the petition; all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether there is substance in the petitioner's allegations and whether the case is worth issuing notice, i.e. whether this Court should entertain the petition seeking launch of prosecution under Section 379 BNSS against respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4 for alleged perjury/misrepresentation of the Court in CWP No.10550 of 2024. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The matter is not a case worth issuing notice; the Court declines to entertain the request to launch prosecution under Section 379 BNSS.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

The present petition is dismissed and all pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶22

Key takeaways

Although the Court considered that it should have dismissed the petition with heavy costs, it refrained from doing so for the reason that even the respondent had filed a similar frivolous petition.ratio¶21
Arraigning respondents No.3 (Smt. Bimla Devi) and No.4 (Akash Kataria) — who were not respondents in the earlier writ petitions — without any involvement indicates that two brothers are fighting in the Courts because they have surplus money to spend, occupying the time of the Courts in frivolous litigation while massive numbers of matters including bail petitions remain pending with people languishing in jail.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CRM-M-45431-2024 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, Anoop Chitkara J., decided 03.05.2025) — Dismissed. AVR Public School and another, through its President and Secretary, sought launch of prosecution under Section 379 BNSS against respondent No.2 (Vijay Singh Kataria, younger brother of the President of the School/Society), respondent No.3 Smt. Bimla Devi and respondent No.4 (Akash Kataria, described as a nephew) for committing perjury by misrepresenting the Court in CWP No.10550 of 2024. The Court traced the antecedent writ petitions CWP Nos.4397 and 9327 of 2024 (both dismissed, the latter on 25.04.2024) and CWP No.10550 of 2024 (dismissed as withdrawn), noting respondents Nos.3 and 4 were not parties to those petitions. Observing that the petitioner-Society and respondent No.2 — two brothers — were fighting each other in the Courts with surplus money and occupying Court time in frivolous litigation while large numbers of matters including bail petitions remained pending, the Court concluded it was not a case worth issuing notice and refrained from imposing heavy costs because even the respondent had filed a similarly frivolous petition. All pending applications disposed of. Speaking/reasoned: Yes; Reportable: No.

¶1

CRM-M-45431-2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

104

¶4

CRM-M-45431-2024 Date of decision: 03.05.2025

¶5

AVR Public School and another ...Pe��oners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶7

Present: Mr. Deepak Vashisth, Advocate for the pe��oners.

¶8

Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

¶9

¶10

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶11

The pe��oner-School has come up before this Court through its President and Secretary, seeking launch of prosecu�on under Sec�on 379 BNSS, against respondent No.2, who is younger brother of the President of the School, respondent No.4, who is his nephew and respondent No.3 Smt. Bimla Devi for commi�ng perjury by mis-represen�ng this Court in CWP No.10550 of 2024.

¶12

I have heard counsel for the pe��oner and gone through the pleadings, to ascertain that whether there is substance in the allega�ons and whether the case is worth issuing no�ce or not and an analysis would lead to the following outcome:

¶13

The pe��oner’s case is that AVR Educa�on Society is a registered society in Gurugram under the Haryana Registra�on and Regula�on of Socie�es Rules, 2012. The society is running a school named AVR Public School on land measuring 8150 square yards. Respondent no.2, who is younger brother of the President of the Society had filed a writ pe��on i.e. CWP No.4397 of 2024 (Annexure P-1) before this Court for issuance of direc�ons to the respondents to take decision on his representa�on but that pe��on was dismissed by this Court by permi�ng him to file fresh pe��on a�er giving be�er par�culars including Regula�on which governs the grant of affilia�on or its renewal and also locus standi of respondent No.2 (pe��oner in that pe��on). A�er that, respondent No.2 had filed another writ pe��on i.e. CWP No.9327 of 2024 (Vijay Singh Kataria Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. ) (Annexure P-2) in which he sought a writ of mandamus by direc�ng the respondents to cons�tute a Special Inves�ga�on Team (SIT) under the supervision of Senior Police Officer to enquire into the complaint made by Vijay Singh Kataria to SHO, P.S. Sector-14, Gurgaon.

¶14

The said writ pe��on was dismissed on 25.04.2024 and liberty was granted again to file a fresh pe��on with men�oning full par�culars, making

¶15

JYOTI 2025.05.12 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶16

¶17

CRM-M-45431-2024

¶18

appropriate prayer and specifically sta�ng that there is no alterna�ve remedy. A�er that, Vijay Singh Kataria, filed another writ pe��on i.e. CWP No.10550 of 2024 (Annexure P-3) before this Court for issuance of direc�on to the respondents to decide his representa�on dated 12.03.2024. Even this pe��on was dismissed as withdrawn, however, the Court was considering imposing heavy costs for filing different pe��ons for the same prayer, through different offices, however, on the prayer of pe��oner, the same was allowed to withdraw.

¶19

Although, all the three pe��ons are withdrawn but the pe��oner therein i.e. Vijay Singh Kataria, respondent No.2 had men�oned certain facts, which had relied in paragraph 8 onwards, the pe��oner has referred to various documents and now seeks ac�on.

¶20

It appears that the pe��oner, Society as well as respondent No.2 are rich people, who have sufficient spare money to spend on fic��ous li�ga�on. Earlier, respondent No.2 had filed three pe��ons and in the third pe��on this Court had ques�oned him and now the pe��oner has filed a pe��on, in which he has arraigned not only Vijay Singh Kataria as respondent No.2 but without any involvement he has arraigned Smt. Bimla Devi wife of Daya Nand as respondent No.3 and one Akash Kataria s/o Vijay Singh Kataria as respondent No.4, who were not respondents in that pe��on. It is not the pe��oner’s case that respondents No.3 and 4 were not even the party in the writ pe��ons, thus, this conduct of arraigning respondents No.3 and 4 as party clearly points out that here two brothers are figh�ng in the Courts because they have surplus money to spend or ge�ng that this luxury affects the process of jus�ce occupying the �me of the Courts in frivolous li�ga�ons where massive number of ma�ers are pending including a large number of bail pe��ons, where the people are languishing in jail.

¶21

In case, the pe��oner had any grievance, he has so many other remedies to take but now the pe��oner wants this Court also to indulge in a fight with his real brother and wants to se�le his score through Court but this Court refrains to do so, although, this Court should have dismissed the present pe��on with heavy costs but this Court is refraining from doing so for the reason that even the respondent had filed a similar frivolous pe��on. As such, it is a not a case for worth issuing no�ce.

¶22

Given above, present pe��on dismissed. All pending applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

¶23

03.05.2025/ Jyo�-II Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable:

¶24

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Yes No.

¶25

JYOTI 2025.05.12 15:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.

¶26

Avr Public School and Another v. State of Haryana and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Avr Public School and Another v. State of Haryana and Other

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suryakant Vs State of Haryana

Anil Kumar and Another Vs State of Haryana and Another

Rakesh Vs State of Haryana

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Amritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab