Interpolation of word ',-ch' in paragraph 5c, 5l and the relief clause of the typed copy of plaint presented to be included in the private paper book in
First Appeal No. 295/2005 is the cause for present application under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(2) The necessary facts are that one Tilak Pradhan (since deceased represented through legal representatives, respondents No. 4 & 5) and
respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing survey No. 747 rakwa 16 biswa, survey
No. 748 rakwa 1 bigha 8 biswa, survey No. 792 rakwa 3 bigha 5 biswa, survey No. 808 rakwa 4 bigha 15 biswa and survey No. 809 rakwa 1 bigha 4
biswa on 16/08/1993 which was registered as Civil Suit No. 5A/1993 (new No. Civil Suit No. 2A/2004).
(3) On 08/05/1997, plaintiffs filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for impleading present applicant, Ullas Gupta, as
defendant No. 2A on the plea that during pendency of the suit, defendants No. 1 and 2 have transferred their rights in the suit property. The
application was allowed on 26/03/19998. Thereafter plaintiffs filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on 29/07/1998
seeking amendment in the plaint pleadings in form of paragraph 5v, 5c, 5l. The application was allowed by order dated 22/02/1999. However, the
record reveals that the amendment was not carried out in the original plaint.
(4) That Rule 18 of Order 6 CPC stipulates that “if a party who has obtained an order for leave to amend does not amend accordingly within the
time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted
to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the case may be, unless the time is extended by the
Court.â€
(5) In the case at hand, no such order is brought on record by the plaintiffs to establish that the amendment which was allowed on 22/02/1999 was
carried out in the original plaint. In law, therefore, there was no amendment in the original plaint.
(6) On 29/04/2002, plaintiffs filed another application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of Smt. Alka Gupta as defendant No. 2B.
Trial Court by order dated 02/05/2002 allowed the same. Smt. Alka Gupta was incorporated as defendant No. 2B in the plaint.
(7) That the plaintiffs had filed one more application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC on 13/08/2004. The said application was,
however, dismissed by the trial Court. Vide said application, the plaintiffs sought to amend the plaint pleading in the form of paragraphs 5n, 5Q and in
the relief clause by adding certain relief.
(8) Pertinent it is to note that by said proposed amendment, plaintiffs sought mandatory injunction to the extent that the construction raised by
defendants No. 2A & 2B over the suit property be removed.
(9) The suit was dismissed by judgment/decree dated 30/03/2005 with a further finding that defendants No. 1, 2, 2A & 2B being in the settled
possession of the land in question.
(10) The trial Court while dwelling upon the aspect the relief sought against defendants No. 2A and 2B observed:-
“2& -------- okn esa mijksDr Hkwfe izfroknh Øekad 1] 2 }kjk izfroknh Øekad 2v] 2c dks foØ; djuk crkrs gq;s mUgsa Hkh i{kdkj cuk;k x;k gS
rFkk bUgsa i{kdkj cuk;s tkus ds ckn bl lEcU/k esa vfHkopu esa la'kks/ku djus dk vkosnu fn;k tks Lohdkj rks gqvk ijUrq mlds ckn oknhx.k us ml
vfHkopu ds lEcU/k esa vius nkok esa u rks dksbZ la'kks/ku fd;k u gh okn esa la'kks/ku djus dh izkFkZuk dhAâ€
(11) The plaintiffs preferred First Appeal under Section 96 of CPC on 12/07/2005 against the judgment/decree dated 30/03/2005 as First Appeal No.
295/2005. One another ground raised was that the appellant filed an application for amendment of pleading on 29/07/1998 and same was allowed by
the trial Court on 22/09/1999 and permission for amendment was not granted by the Trial Court. Therefore, the plaintiff could not carried the
amendment of pleading.
(12) On 04/05/2007, appellants/plaintiffs filed an Interlocutory Application [I.A. No. 7134/2007] inter alia seeking permission of the Court to prepare
the private paper book and to submit it before the Court.
(13) That by order dated 11/05/2007, the application was allowed. The appellants/plaintiffs were directed to prepare the private paper book and submit
it in the Registry for compilation.
(14) On 10/07/2009, appellants/plaintiffs submitted the private paper book which was registered as Document No. 10987/2009. It is in this paper book,
as alleged on behalf of the applicant that the applicants/plaintiffs slipped in a typed copy of the improved version of plaint purporting it to be the original
copy of plaintiff's Civil Suit No. 2A/2004.
(15) It is urged that the same was not a true copy of the original plaint but it was an amended copy with substantial addition / improvement which was
not
therein in the original plaint.
(16) It is contended that there was addition in paragraph 5c, 5l and the relief clause of the typed copy of the plaint inter alia seeking sale deed as well
as seeking injunction against the defendants No. 2A & 2B which was not there in the original plaint.
(17) It is urged that the Division Bench while delivering the judgment on 6th December, 2012 in First Appeal No. 295/2005 was led away by this act
of appellant/plaintiff. Paragraphs 5 and 45 of the judgment has been pointed out to substantiate the said contention. In paragraphs 5 and 45, it is
observed by the Court:-
“5. Plaintiffs further pleaded that they had been cultivating the land since then. However, defendants No.1 and 2 on 14.8.1993 came on the spot
and threatened the plaintiffs that they would sale the land, otherwise their land would be taken forcefully. Thereafter, between 14.8.1993 and
15.8.1993, defendants No.1 and 2 alongwith others destroyed the crops. A report with regard to that effect was lodged at the Police Station Purani
Chhavni. During pendency of the suit, by way of three registered sale deeds dt.15.10.1996, the defendant No.2 sold the suit land in favour of
defendant No.2 (A). The plaintiffs prayed for the relief of declaration that they are the owners of the suit land and decree of permanent injunction
against the defendants No.1 and 2 and 2 (A) be passed and a direction be issued that the aforesaid defendants No.1, 2 and 2(A) shall not interfere in
the possession of the plaintiffs.
45. The trial court, in our opinion, has not considered the vital documents including the order passed by the competent authority under the Urban Land
Ceiling Act. Hence, the trial court has ignored important piece of evidence. From the aforesaid evidence and discussion, in our opinion, the findings
recorded by the trial court against Issue No.4 that the plaintiffs were not in possession of the suit land is contrary to law and the trial court has
committed an error of law in rejecting the application of the plaintiffs filed under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC. The application filed by the plaintiffs
under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is hereby allowed.†(18) It is contended that the appellants/plaintiffs have deliberately to gain benefit, interpolated/
manipulated and produced forged copy of the plaint as original / genuine to mislead, misrepresent and misguide the Court.
(19) Such an act, it is urged, tentamount to offence effecting the administration of justice. The applicant, consequently, seeks action against the
appellants/ plaintiffs.
(20) Countering the contentions, it is urged on behalf of the respondents/plaintiffs that the present application is not tenable in the eyes of law. It is
contended that to maintain a proceedings under Section 340 of 1973 Act it is incumbent to establish that an offence affecting the administration of
justice is committed. Referring to the provisions contained under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code; which is one of the offence covered under Section
195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C., it is contended that no false evidence has been given by the plaintiffs as could be punished under Section 193 IPC. It is urged
that the copy of plaint tendered for preparation of paper book cannot be termed to be a document in eyes of law. Reliance is placed on the definition
of the “document†contained in Section 29 of IPC, which envisages that it denotes any matter expressed or described upon any substance by
means of letters, figures, or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.
(21) However, there is no denial of the fact that in First Appeal No. 295/2005, the plaintiffs/appellants filed application (I.A. No. 7134/2007) seeking
permission of the Court to prepare the private paper book and to submit it before the Court. It is also a matter of fact that no leave was sought by the
appellant for incorporating amendment in the copy of the plaint to be made part of paper book. Even no declaration was given by the
plaintiffs/appellants at any stage of hearing that they have included the amendment in the copy of plaint, though was never incorporated/carried out in
the original plaint. To reiterate the provisions contained under Rule 18 of Order 6 CPC, it stipulates that if a party who has obtained an order for leave
to amend does not amend accordingly within the time limited for that purpose by the order, or if no time is thereby limited then within fourteen days
from the date of the order, he shall not be permitted to amend after the expiration of such limited time as aforesaid or of such fourteen days, as the
case may be, unless the time is extended by the Court. Thus the amendment which was allowed by the trial Court on 22/02/1999, was never carried
out, faded in thin air, but stealthy brought in existence without any lawful authority in the copy of plaint which formed part of the paper book. It is also
a matter of record that the pleadings of the plaint forming part of paper book which the First Appellate Court relied upon to draw up the conclusion.
(22) Sub-Section (1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C. envisages that when upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that
it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195,
which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,- (a) record a finding to
that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the
appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the
accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such magistrate.
(23) Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. stipulates:-
“195(1)(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196
(both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged
to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii), except on
the complaint in writing of that Court, or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to
which that Court is subordinate.â€
(24) Section 193 IPC mandates that whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for
the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.Â
(25) As per Section 191 IPC, giving false evidence means whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth,
or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false
or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
(26) Similarly, Section 192 IPC stipulates:-
“192. Fabricating false evidence.â€" Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic
record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may
appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such
circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the
evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said “to fabricate false evidenceâ€.â€
(27) Furthermore, Section 463 and 471 IPC provides for:-
“463. Forgery.â€"Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause
damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any
express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
471. Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record.â€" Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document or electronic
record which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged document or electronic record, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had
forged such document or electronic record.â€
(28) In view whereof, we are of the considered opinion that the plaintiffs/appellants prima facie appeared to have committed an offence punishable
under Section 193 of IPC in a proceeding in First Appeal No. 295/2005; therefore, Principal Registrar, High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
Gwalior is directed to draw a complaint in writing and send it to Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gwalior and take sufficient security to his satisfaction
from the plaintiffs/appellants (Respondents No. 1 to 5 herein) for appearance before such Magistrate.
