+ W.P.(CRL) 286/2007
RAJKUMAR INDORIA ….. Petitioner Through Ms. Anu Mehta, Advocate.
versus
NCT OF DELHI NEW DELHI ….. Respondent Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
ORDER
% 18.08.2010
CRL.M.A. No. 13869/2010
1. The writ petition filed by the petitioner for police protection to him and his family members was disposed of on 9th August, 2010. It was noticed that the petitioner was initially granted police protection in the year 2005 but police protection/PSO was subsequently withdrawn after re-assessment of the threat perception in the year 2007. The order dated 9th August, 2010 notices the fact that the threat perception of the petitioner and his family was examined by Special Cell, Delhi Police, Ministry of Home Affairs and then again by DCP (Special Cell). It was also noticed that there are some FIRs, which are registered against the petitioner.
2. Now the petitioner has filed the present application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 stating, inter alia, that wrong and false averments have been made in the status report which amount to perjury. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that FIR No. 580/2005, Police Station NDLS, Delhi was registered on the complaint of the petitioner against Mr. Ramchander Khaganwal under Section 325 and not under Section 323 of the IPC. It is further stated that the licence of Mr. Ramchander Khaganwal was cancelled in 2007 by the Northern Railway. She has relied upon In re R. Karuppan 2001 CriLJ 266.
3. These two allegations do not justify initiation of prosecution. In the order dated 9th August, 2010 several aspects and facts have been taken into consideration. The dispute between the petitioner and Mr. Ramchander Khaganwal is noticed and that there are cross FIRs. It is not expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into the alleged offence as has been observed in Pritish vs State of Maharashtra (2002) 1 SCC 253. The relevant paragraph reads:
“16. Be it noted that the court at the stage envisaged in Section 340 of the Code is not deciding the guilt or innocence of the party against whom proceedings are to be taken before the Magistrate. At that stage the court only considers whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence affecting administration of justice. In M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras1 a Constitution Bench of this Court cautioned that no expression on the guilt or innocence of the persons should be made by the court while passing an order under Section 340 of the Code. An exercise of the court at that stage is not for finding whether any offence was committed or who committed the same. The scope is confined to see whether the court could then decide on the materials available that the matter requires inquiry by a criminal court and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have it inquired into.”
4. Further, the expediency should be judged by taking into
consideration the impact that commission of such offence has on the
administration of justice. The Supreme Court has held in Iqbal Sigh
Marwah v. Meenakkshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370:
“23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests 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 enquiry 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 in Section 195(1)(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 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. .”
5. The aforesaid submissions do not justify further proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The application is dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
AUGUST 18, 2010
VKR
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1721681/
