2016 (11) TMI 458 - HC - Indian Laws

Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. moved in complaint case filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - petitioner seeks an order quashing/setting aside the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka, Delhi dismissing the appeal against the order passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate Dwarka in his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. moved in complaint case filed by respondent No.1 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Held that - Additional Sessions Judge by taking note of the fact that in the criminal complaint in which the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner herein, respondent No. 1 had submitted that loan was taken by the petitioner for commencing his business from her husband and she has given a cheque only. The admission of respondent No. 1 in her pleadings including the affidavits regarding the date, time and execution of all the affidavits and contents thereof cannot tantamount to commission of offence of perjury. Finding the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent No. 1 being neither false nor contradictory to the story of advancing loan to the petitioner through her husband/respondent No. 2, the learned Additional Sessions Judge agreed with the reasoning of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate taking a view that no offence of perjury has been committed by the respondents. This court does not find any irregularity or infirmity in the impugned orders. In addition, in view of the foregoing discussions on the principles relating to exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court does not find the present case being fit for exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. in the present case.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order dated 13.11.2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge
2. Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging perjury by respondents
3. Dismissal of appeal by Additional Sessions Judge
4. Invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of order dated 13.11.2014
The petitioner sought to quash the order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dwarka, dismissing the appeal against the order dated 09.07.2014 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner contended that the respondents committed perjury by filing a false complaint and affidavit. However, both lower courts found no prima facie case under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The High Court reviewed the facts of the case, including the transactions between the parties involving cheques, and observed that the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed, giving the benefit of doubt to the petitioner.

Issue 2: Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging perjury
The petitioner filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondents, alleging perjury. The petitioner argued that the respondents admitted to filing a false complaint and affidavit. The High Court examined the legal principles cited by the petitioner and the arguments presented. The court noted that the lower courts had dismissed the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding perjury. The High Court analyzed the parameters for exercising powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as laid down in previous judgments.

Issue 3: Dismissal of appeal by Additional Sessions Judge
The Additional Sessions Judge had dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The High Court reviewed the judgments and orders passed by both lower courts. It considered the facts of the case, the transactions between the parties, and the reasoning provided by the lower courts for their decisions. The High Court found no illegality or infirmity in the findings of the lower courts regarding the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 4: Invocation of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner invoked the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the High Court. The court examined the facts and circumstances of the case, the legal principles involved, and the arguments presented by both parties. The High Court concluded that there was no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned orders. It held that the case did not warrant the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner.