Muthu Karuppan Vs Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and Anr on 15 Apr 2011

Posted on April 26 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that procedural lapses are crucial in proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act 1971.

From Para 23,

23) We have already pointed out that while dealing with criminal contempt in terms of Section 2(c) of the Act, strict procedures are to be adhered. In a series of decisions, this Court has held that jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for contempt as also the jurisdiction to punish for contempt are discretionary with the court. Contempt generally and criminal contempt certainly is a matter between the court and the alleged contemnor. No one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt. The person filing an application or petition before the court does not become a complainant or petitioner in the proceedings. He is just an informer or relator. His duty ends with the facts being brought to the notice of the court. It is thereafter for the court to act on such information or not. [Vide Om Prakash Jaiswal vs. D.K. Mittal, (2000) 3 SCC 171] Further Section 15 of the Act as well as the Madras High Court Contempt of Court Rules insist that, particularly, for initiation of criminal contempt, consent of the Advocate General is required. Any deviation from the prescribed Rules should not be accepted or condoned lightly and must be deemed to be fatal to the proceedings taken to initiate action for contempt. In the present case, the above provisions have not been strictly adhered to and even the notice issued by the then Division Bench merely sought for explanation from the appellant about the allegations made by Respondent No. 1.

Muthu Karuppan Vs Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and Anr on 15 Apr 2011

Citations : [2011 AIR SC 1645], [2011 CRI LJ 2680], [2011 CRIMES SC 2 163], [2011 CTC 3 520], [2011 JCR SC 3 23], [2011 JT SC 4 268], [2011 KCCR SN 3 329], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL 2 829], [2011 SCALE 4 664], [2011 SCC 5 496], [2011 SCC CRI 2 709], [2011 SCR 5 329], [2011 UC 2 922], [2011 UJ 2 1658], [2011 AIR SC 2588], [2012 CUTLT 113 822], [2011 AIC 102 74], [2011 AIOL 291], [2011 CRLJ SC 2680], [2011 JT 4 273], [2011 SUPREME 3 217], [2011 SUPREME 3 228], [2011 LW CRL 1 666], [2011 SCC CR 2 709], [2011 SCJ 4 82], [2011 MLJ CRI 3 542], [2011 CCR 2 214], [2011 SLT 3 438], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 829], [2011 KCCRSN 3 329], [2012 CUT LT 113 822], [2011 MLJ CRL 3 54], [22011 KHC SN 2 212011 CRLJ 2680], [2011 AIR SCW 2588], [2011 JT 4 268], [2011 CRILJ 2680]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1204818/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aef4e4b014971141544e

Index of all Perjury case laws is here.

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993

Posted on July 4, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment by a division bench of the Supreme Court of India around perjury/fraud committed upon the Courts. Just read the below line to understand how far the frauds take the Courts for a ride.

This Civil Appeal was numbered 994 of 1972, but got decided on October 27, 1993!

Twenty One (21) years lost at Supreme Court itself!!!

From Para 5,

5. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that “there is no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to come to court with a true case and prove it by true evidence”. The principle of “finality of litigation” cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the court-process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, who’s case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

From Para 6,

6. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another’s loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Ex. B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial is tantamount to playing fraud on the court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the appellants- defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Ex. B-15 and non-suited the plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party.

Indiankanoon version:

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993

Casemine version:

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By Lrs. Vs Jagannath (Dead) By Lrs. and Ors on 27 Oct 1993

Citations : [1994 AIR SC 853], [1993 SCALE 4 277], [1994 UJ SC 1 1], [1993 BC SC 2 546], [1994 BLJR 1 216], [1994 OLR SC 1 201], [1995 PLR 109 293], [1993 SUPP SCR 3 422], [1994 SCC 1 1], [1994 PLJR 1 39], [1994 APLJ SC 1 66], [1994 LW 1 21], [1994 GLH 1 81], [1993 JT SC 6 331]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1151521/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac8fe4b014971140f23f

Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020

Posted on December 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A JMFC has ordered for complaint of perjury in this Judgment. Nice one…

From Para 10, 11 and 12,

10. I have accepted B summary report filed by I.O., in Crime No., 08/2020 registered at Wai police station. On that basis, in present inquiry, I come to the conclusion that informant of said crime has given false FIR at Wai police station as well false statement on oath under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Court of Justice. Therefore, it appears to me that the informant being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, but she has given false FIR as well as false statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. The informant has given statement on oath under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai, inspite of knowledge that the FIR lodged by her is false. Informant has lodged false FIR with intent to cause injury to the present applicant and to Bhisham Parwani, knowing that no just or lawful ground for further proceeding on the basis of that false FIR.
11. Therefore, I record my finding that Criminal Prosecution is required to be initiated against the respondent No. 2 of this application who is informant of Crime No. 08/2020 registered at Wai police station for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has prima facie committed aforesaid offences in relation to B summary proceeding before this Court. It is necessary to make mention here that there is no cogent and convincing material to proceed against respondents No. 3 to 6 for the offences mentioned above.
12. Considering all above grounds, a complaint is required to be filed against the present respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is required to authorise officer of this Court to file a written complaint on behalf of this Court against respondent No. 2 in this Court.

Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020

Earlier proceedings here.

Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 06 November 2008

Posted on January 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

My favorite Judge, Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji had delivered this gem of an order.

9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for overflowing of Court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong-doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong-doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong-doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.

Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 06 November 2008

Citations: [154 (2008) DLT 411],

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66a48607dba6b53436039

The appeal filed at Supreme Court is available here.

Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013

Posted on March 31, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

The cunning knife produced a forged passport and husband exposed her with a RTI response from Passport Authority. And the clever police denied to file a FIR for the forgery complaint!!

Hon’ble Madras High Court ordered the police to file FIR and investigate the case in accordance with law. Awesome !!!

Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013

Citations:

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163886641/

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Yalala Swapna Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and anr on 09 June, 2009

Posted on March 22, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has penalized the Writ petitioner as she has lied that she has submitted notarized affidavits but in fact she could not prove that she did. Hence the said affidavits introduced into the Court are termed as false affidavits which contained the false averment/pleading.

Yalala Swapna Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and anr on 09 June, 2009

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019

Posted on March 8, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

A diabolical Medical college management played a cunning cat and mouse game with MCI, Government and the hon’ble Supreme Court of India to cheat and get permission to do admissions for medical courses in their college and paid the hefty price.

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 51]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194049971/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c7164069eff4312dfbb5f69

Index of all Perjury case laws is here.

Dhananjay Sharma Vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 1995

Posted on August 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This landmark judgment from Apex Court has been cited in many cases handled by CBI as the contemnors in this case were handed out Simple Imprisonment from 1 day to 3 months.

Superintendent of Police Hissar Shri Anil Dawra to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of two months for committing contempt of court by filing false affidavits
Addl. Superintendent of Police Hissar Shri Sham Lal Goel and SHO Hissar Shri Rajendra Singh to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1500 each and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days each.
Shri Sushil Kumar taxi driver to suffer one days’ simple imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 1000 and in default to further undergo fifteen days simple imprisonment, for committing contempt of this Court

The petitioner of this Writ petition could have gotten compensation from State for his illegal detention but due to his exaggeration of the incident, has disentitled themselves from receiving any compensation.

Dhananjay Sharma Vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 1995

Some related news here.

Citations : [1995 SCC CRI 608], [1995 SCALE 3 138], [1995 AIR SC 1795], [1995 CRIMES SC 2 592], [1995 SCC 3 757], [1995 BOMCR SC 4 366], [1995 ALR 26 180], [1995 ALT CRI 2 340], [1996 BLJR 1 352], [1995 SCR 3 964], [1996 UPLBEC 1 203], [1995 JT SC 4 483]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1877695/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acc2e4b014971140fa5f

Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs BOC India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016

Posted on August 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A company by name Sciemed Overseas tried to mislead the High Court by falsely saying in their affidavit that a certain said contract work is nearing completion whereas in reality it was not so, as assessed by a court-appointed advocate, as a one-man committee.

Hon’ble High Court “took the view that Sciemed had given a false affidavit in this Court to the effect that the work was near completion. In this view of the matter, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Sciemed and imposed costs of Rs. 10 lakhs to be deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority.”

After this the said company pushes it’s proprietor to state one more ‘justification’ affidavit saying what was said earlier was about just one piece of work and not ‘whole’ piece of work. The deponent after giving the above explanation, tendered an unconditional and unqualified apology to the High Court for the statement regarding the near completion of the project.

And then another twist in this companies averments came in as in fact the statement made in the affidavit filed in this Court was not a false statement but was bona fide and not a deliberate attempt to mislead this Court. It was also submitted that the allegedly false or misleading statement had no impact on the decision taken by this Court and should, therefore, be ignored.

After all these flip flops, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as below in Para 23,

The correctness of the statement made by Sciemed was examined threadbare not only by the learned Single Judge but also by the Division Bench and it was found that a considerable amount of work had still to be completed by Sciemed and it was not as if the work was nearing completion as represented to this Court. Additionally, the Report independently given by the learned advocate appointed to make an assessment, also clearly indicated that a considerable amount of work had still to be performed by Sciemed. The Report was not ex parte but was carefully prepared after an inspection of the site and discussing the matter with Shailendra Prasad Singh the proprietor of Sciemed and an engineer of Sciemed as well as officers from the RIMS.

Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs BOC India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016

Index of all Perjury case laws is here.

Chandra Shekhar Kargeti Vs State of Uttakhand on 8 August, 2018

Posted on August 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful Judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand, wherein it was held that Filing of False Affidavit is perjury and in this case it was done by a Advocate. A cost of 2 Lakhs was levied.

From Para 11,

A perusal of the criminal misc. application moved under Section 482 Cr.P.C. would reveal that the applicant has annexed some papers of case diary (Annexure 2 to the application) without disclosing the fact that from where he had obtained the papers of case diary which are confidential papers prepared by the Investigating Officer during investigation. It is surprising to note here that the applicant never appeared before the court below after submission of charge sheet and the trial court has also not passed orders under Section 207 and 208 of Cr.P.C. to supply the documents to the applicant. Since the court below has never supplied the papers of the case diary to the applicant as provided under Section 207 and 208 Cr.P.C. it is quite surprising how the applicant has annexed the papers of the case diary before this Court.

From Para 20,

Applicant before this Court is a practicing Advocate. He has himself stated so in para 8 of the present application – that the applicant is an Advocate and a public spirited person, a resident of Haldwani. Applicant has verified the contents of paragraph no. 5 of the criminal misc. application on the basis of record. However, no document has been placed on record to show that on the basis of which record or document, the averments were made in paragraph no. 5 of the criminal misc. application. However, the averment itself is false as the complainant is a member of Scheduled Tribe community and certificate to this effect has been issued to him by the competent authority. Thus it is a proven fact on record that contents of paragraph no. 5 of the application are false and misleading and were made to commit fraud upon the Court.

Chandra Shekhar Kargeti Vs State of Uttakhand on 8 August, 2018

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Perjury – Forged Evidence or False Statements on Oath or False Affidavit Submitted

Muthu Karuppan Vs Parithi Ilamvazhuthi and Anr on 15 Apr 2011

S.P Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath on 27 Oct 1993

This Civil Appeal was numbered 994 of 1972, but got decided on October 27, 1993!

Twenty One (21) years lost at Supreme Court itself!!!

Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020

Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 06 November 2008

Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013

Yalala Swapna Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and anr on 09 June, 2009

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Anr Vs UOI and Ors 07 January, 2019

Dhananjay Sharma Vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 1995

Sciemed Overseas Inc. Vs BOC India Limited & Ors on 11 January, 2016

Chandra Shekhar Kargeti Vs State of Uttakhand on 8 August, 2018