Disposed

Pramod Janu and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC1 Dec 2014CRLMA/55/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In痳 application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant against the Writ Petitioners, the court held that initiating an inquiry was not in the interest of justice as the matter involved private litigation over property, the Writ Petition was already disposed of, and criminal proceedings were pending.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was disposed of by refusing to initiate an inquiry for perjury.

Pramod Janu and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

¶3

ORDER

¶4

Pramod Janu & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.

¶5

(1) S. B. Cr. MISC. Appl. NO. 55/2014.

¶6

¶7

S.B. Cr. Writ Petition No. 66/2013.

¶8

Date of Order : December 01^st 2014. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA

¶9

Mr Nirmal Kumar Goyal, for the applicants. Mr Jitendra Shrimali, Public Prosecutor. Mr Pankaj Gupta, for the respondent.

¶10

BY THE COURT

¶11

This application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been filed by complainant Pushpa Devi with the contention that a Criminal Writ Petition has been filed by the accused persons for quashing of FIR with the averment that they are in possession of the property and they have purchased the disputed property after verifying the title of the seller and chain of documents on market price whereas both these averments as regards to possession and verifying the title of the seller and chain of documents are false as the Court has opined while disposing of the Cr. Writ Petition No. 66/2013 that original deeds were not in the possession of the accused persons and electricity connection also suggests that possession has not been handed over to them and the contention of the complainant Pushpa Devi is that a suitable enquiry be ordered under Section 340 Cr.P.C against the writ petitioners, accused persons whereas

¶12

¶13

the contention of the accused persons, petitioners is that they have not made any false assertion. It has not been stated anywhere that the original papers have been seen. They have verified only the chain of documents which may be photo copy also and symbolic possession has been handed over to them which is evident from the registered sale deed itself and while disposing of the Cr. Writ Petition, no findings have been recorded by the Court but only observations have been made and only on the observations, they cannot the prosecuted for perjury.

¶14

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for respondent and perused the impugned judgment passed in SB Cr. Writ Petition No. 66/2013 and the contentions raised therein.

¶15

It is true that in writ petition, it has been contended on behalf of the petitioners before the writ court that they are in peaceful possession of the property, possession was handed over to them and after verifying the title of the seller they purchased the property. There is no dispute about that fact that registered sale deed has been executed in faovur of writ petitioners Pramod Janu and Mohd. Juber and it has also been stated in it that possession has been handed over to them and on the contentions in the registered sale deed, the said pleading have been submitted before the Court and counsel for the writ petitioners has stated that a locked house has been handed over to them with symbolic

¶16

¶17

possession and key of the same has also been handed over to them and it has also been pointed out that complainant is also not in possession of the property and the electricity bill having no bearing on the fact of the possession as no consumption of electricity has been shown in the bill, hence it is clear that nobody was residing there and only to show possession, the electricity connection has been taken.

¶18

The further contention of the writ petitioners is that they have not seen the original title deeds but after verifying the title of the seller by photo copies of the documents, they have purchased the property and relied upon Kuriakose Vs. State of Kerala, 1995 Cr.L.J. 1751 where it has been stated that it is not the case that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C need to be initiated as a matter of course but after considering the nature of the false statement, the Court should decide whether to initiate the proceedings or not. Here in the present case, looking to the fact that the matter is as regards the controversy between the parties over the property in dispute and possession have been claimed by both the parties, it would not be in the interest of justice to initiate inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C when the original Writ Petition has already been disposed of and dismissed and criminal proceedings in the shape of FIR No. 327/2013 are pending against the writ petitioners. The complainant has relied upon Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., AIR 2002 SC 236 (1) where it has been held that Court is not under an obligation to afford an

¶19

¶20

opportunity of hearing to the person against whom proceedings have been initiated. There is no dispute about this legal proposition but when writ petitioners are before the Court, an opportunity of hearing has been awarded to them. Further reliance has been placed on Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Pepsu (now Punjab), 1959 Cr.L.J. 1124 and Suo Moto Proceedings against Mr R. Karuppan, Advocate 2001 Cr.L.J. 2611 where looking to the facts of the particular case, orders have been passed but here in the present case as held earlier that it is a private litigation between the two parties and contrary contentions have been raised, the Writ Petition has already been disposed of, hence it is not in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry.

¶21

The application is disposed of accordingly.

¶22

(NISHA GUPTA),J.

¶23

Gandhi/- 52

¶24

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being e-mailed.

¶25

BM GANDHI Sr. Personal Assistant.

Pramod Janu and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Janu and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sameen Khan Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Girraj Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Pradeep Kumar Rathi and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

State Vs Vintaz Distaler

Ram Sahay Kharwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Hukam Chand and Ors. Vs State and Ors.