Case Note & Summary
The present civil application was filed by CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited (the applicant) in a disposed of appeal from order arising out of Special Civil Suit No.1/2010. The applicant sought a direction under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) for recording a finding that an offence under Section 193 read with Section 191 or Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) had been committed by the respondents (Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited and its directors). The background of the case is that the applicant had filed a civil suit seeking a temporary injunction restraining the respondents from taking any steps in relation to a tender floated by Delhi Transco Limited (DTL). On 9th December 2010, the Thane Court granted an ex parte injunction in favor of the applicant. However, on 28th December 2010, the District Judge, Thane vacated that injunction. The respondents then filed an appeal from order (Appeal from Order No. 102 of 2011) before the Bombay High Court, which was disposed of on 11th January 2011. The High Court set aside the order dated 28th December 2010 and allowed the respondents to submit drawings to DTL, but directed that they should not take any further steps for execution of the contract until the decision of the applicant's application below Exhibit 5 (filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC). Subsequently, the temporary injunction was denied and the application at Exhibit 5 was dismissed. The applicant then filed the present civil application alleging that the respondents had committed perjury by filing false affidavits and fabricating documents. The applicant pointed to alleged contradictions between an affidavit filed by respondent No.2 (Antoine Magnier) on 9th December 2010 and a subsequent affidavit filed on 28th December 2010, as well as alleged fabrication of a document dated 1st December 2010. The court examined the alleged contradictions and found that they were not material to the main issue in the suit. The court held that for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, a prima facie case must be made out that an offence has been committed and that it is expedient in the interests of justice to proceed. The court noted that the alleged false statements were not material to the decision in the civil suit and that the applicant had not shown any fabrication of evidence. The court also observed that the dismissal of the injunction application did not automatically lead to perjury proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the civil application, finding no merit in the allegations.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Perjury Proceedings - Section 340 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - Application for initiating complaint for perjury must disclose a prima facie case that an offence has been committed and that it is expedient in the interests of justice to proceed - Court held that mere contradictions in affidavits or documents, without materiality to the main issue, do not warrant action under Section 340 CrPC (Paras 1-10). B) Indian Penal Code - False Evidence - Sections 193, 191, 209 IPC - Fabrication of Evidence - Allegation of false affidavit and fabricated documents must be examined for materiality - Court found that the alleged false statements were not material to the decision in the civil suit and hence no prima facie case made out (Paras 5-10). C) Civil Procedure Code - Temporary Injunction - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Interlocutory Orders - The dispute pertained to a temporary injunction in a civil suit regarding submission of drawings to Delhi Transco Limited - The appeal from order was disposed of with directions - Held that the subsequent dismissal of the injunction application does not automatically lead to perjury proceedings (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a prima facie case exists for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC for alleged offences under Sections 193, 191, and 209 IPC based on alleged contradictions in affidavits and documents filed in civil proceedings.
Final Decision
The Civil Application No. 1282 of 2011 is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC
- Section 195 CrPC
- Section 193 IPC
- Section 191 IPC
- Section 209 IPC
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
- Prima facie case for perjury
- Materiality of false statement
- Fabrication of evidence
