Delhi High Court
Sh. Dhani Ram Mehto vs Sh. Harnam Singh & Ors on 27 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on:27.06.2025
+ CRL.A. 797/2023
SH. DHANI RAM MEHTO ..... Appellant
versus
SH. HARNAM SINGH & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoranjan and Ms. Aditi Ajmera,
Advocates
For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Sharma, SPP for the CBI with Mr.
Swapnil Choudhary, Mr. Ishann Bhardwaj,
Mr. Shivam Mishra and Ms. Madhulika Rai
Sharma, Advocates for CBI.
Mr. Vivek Kadyan, Advocate for R-5
CORAM
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
JUDGMENT
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 341 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC‘) challenging the order dated
17.07.2023 (‘impugned order’), passed by the learned Special Judge,
Rouse Avenue Courts Complex, New Delhi, in Case No. MISC DJ
ASJ 148/2023.
2. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge dismissed the
application filed by the appellant under Section 340 of the CrPC and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 1 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
Section 195 CrPC read with Sections 193, 195, 196, 204 and 211 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC‘) and Section 120B of the IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
3.1. On 16.03.2017, the complainant Vakeel Ahmed/ Respondent
No.5 made a complaint alleging that he required a ‘No Dues
certificate’ against the property bearing no. 47-A, Ram Bagh Road,
Azad Market, Delhi-06 from the DDA and in lieu of issuing the same,
the appellant (AD, Damage Department, Room No. 14A, DDA Vikas
Sadan, INA, New Delhi) and the accused Satvir, who was working
under the appellant, had demanded a bribe of ₹5,000/- from the
complainant. Verification of the aforesaid complaint was conducted
on 16.03.2017 and the same confirmed the demand of ₹4,000/- on part
of the appellant. Pursuant to the same, on the basis of the verification,
on 16.03.2017, RC No. DAI-2017-A-0010 was registered against the
appellant for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act‘) by CBI, ACB, New Delhi.
3.2. The conversations recorded during verification proceedings
were heard in the presence of independent witness and the
complainant and the same corroborated the version of the complainant
and the demand of bribe of ₹4,000/- by the appellant, whereafter the
verification memo was prepared.
3.3. On 16.03.2017, after registration of the case, a trap was laid
wherein the appellant was caught red handed while demanding andSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 2 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
accepting the bribe. It was alleged that the appellant had kept the bribe
amount of ₹3500/- with himself which was recovered from him and
₹500 was given to one of the appellant’s staff-Suraj Mehto, LDC. The
part bribe amount was seized from the accused Suraj. The distinctive
number of the notes recovered from the accused persons were tallied.
The Left Hand Wash and Right Hand Wash of the appellant and the
accused Suraj was taken separately and the same turned the clear
solution into pink indicating that they had touched the tainted bribe
money prepared for the trap.
3.4. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed for
the offence under Section 120B of the IPC read with Section 7 and
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
3.5. After appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Special
Judge by judgment dated 23.12.2022 convicted the appellant for the
offences punishable under Section 7 and under 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act and acquitted
co-accused. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine of ₹15,000/-,
and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for
a period of one month. The appellant filed an appeal, being, CRL.A.
102/2023, against his conviction before this Court and his sentence
was suspended by order dated 14.02.2023.
3.6. The application under Section 340 of the CrPC was filed by the
appellant before the learned Special Judge agitating a number of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 3 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
grounds alleging that the respondents had all connived in deliberate
fabrication, falsification, over writing and tampering of the
documents, including, the complaint, the CO register and the
verification report. Respondent No.1 was sought to be implicated as he
was the Trap Laying Officer (‘TLO’) and in charge of preparation of
all the documents prepared during trap proceedings. Respondent No.2
was sought to be implicated as he was the investigating officer who
filed the chargesheet against the appellant despite allegedly having full
knowledge about the fabricated documents. Respondent No.3 was
sought to be implicated as he was the Verifying Officer who had used
the wrong CO No. while preparing the verification memo and the CO
register was maintained in the office of Respondent No.4, due to
which, he was also sought to be implicated. Respondent No. 5
complainant was sought to be implicated for willingly, intentionally
and deliberately participating and consenting to fabrication and
falsification of documents.
3.7. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed by
the learned Special Judge. It was observed that given the facts and
circumstances, it was not expedient in the interest of justice to file a
complaint against the respondents. It was noted that all the arguments
raised in the application had been considered by the Court while
passing the judgment on conviction. It was observed that the
overwriting of the number ‘2’ as ‘3’ on the complaint did not have any
adverse implication and appeared to be an inadvertent error which led
to no offence. It was found that the error in the verification report in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 4 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
relation to the wrong CO number was a typographical mistake as was
evident from the fact that the transcription as well as page 3 of the
verification report itself bore the correct number. It was also noted that
the appearing of the name of Suraj Mehto in the CO register had been
explained by CBI in its reply to the application under Section 91 of the
CrPC, wherein it was stated that the entry was made after the trap was
concluded. It was further noted that it could not be inferred from the
minor differences in the testimonies of certain official witnesses in
relation to when they had come to find out about the discrepancy that
they had given false evidence. It was observed that the variations in
the statements of the witnesses were not material in nature.
3.8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned
Special Judge dismissed the application under Section 340 of the
CrPC without holding a preliminary enquiry or appreciating the pleas
raised by the appellant in relation to a number of manipulations. He
submitted that no effort was made by the learned Special Judge to go
to the roots of the fabrication that was done by the prosecution.
5. He submitted that it was the plea of the appellant that the
complainant had filed more than one complaint and the date on the
complaint, on the basis of which the case was registered, was
fabricated as ‘3’ had been clearly over written on ‘2’ to make the date-
16.03.2017. He submitted that the same supports the contention of the
appellant that the overwriting was intentional to ignore the earlier
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 5 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
complaint(s) which Respondent No.5 may have given to CBI. He
submitted that the complainant had also admitted in his statement
under Section 161 of the CrPC and in his cross-examination that he
had paid a bribe of ₹1500/- to Satvir (since acquitted) to trace the
process of the concerned file before 16.03.2017. He further submitted
that the file was first put before the appellant on 06.02.2017 which
further supports the contention that a complaint could have been made
by the complainant in the month of February.
6. He submitted that there is also overwriting in the CO register of
the CO number as well as the name of the Verifying officer as well.
He submitted that the same also suggests that the complainant must
have given some other complaint, for which a verifying officer was
appointed, but for some reason, the verification process did not yield
the desired results, due to which, another complaint was taken and
Respondent No.3 was marked as the verifying officer.
7. He submitted that in the column of accused persons, name of
three accused persons has been mentioned, including Suraj Mehto,
even though, there is no mention of him in the complaint given on
16.03.2017 and his name only cropped up during trap proceedings. He
submitted that the name of the co-accused Satvir never came in the
recovery memo, despite which, he was named as an accused. He
submitted that the same shows that the entire case of the prosecution
was fabricated and based on falsities.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 6 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
8. He submitted that in the verification memo at the top, the CO
number has been mentioned as 07/2017, whereas in the transcript, the
CO number has been mentioned as 22/2017. He submitted that the
same also bolsters the submission that the complainant filed more than
one complaint. He submitted that the said aspect has been
unsatisfactorily explained by Respondent No.3 in his deposition and
there is no explanation as to why the wrong CO number was written.
He further submitted that while Respondent No.3 had stated that he
came to find out about the error in Court itself, Respondent No.1 has
stated that he informed Respondent No.3 at the time of handing over
the verification memo that the CO number was wrongly written. He
stated that Respondent No.2 had instead stated that he had verified the
complaint section and crime and then recorded the statement of
Respondent No.3. He submitted that there is clear falsification of
record in the present case and there is also clear over writing of the
number ’17’ over ’16’ in the same.
9. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for the CBI submitted
that the appellant had already taken all the grounds in the present
appeal as part of his defence before the learned Trial Court, despite
which, the appellant has sought to raise the issues again in the
application under Section 340 of the CrPC.
10. He submitted that the learned Special Judge has rightly noted
that the discrepancies and irregularities are minor and the same do not
warrant any complaint against the respondents. He submitted that the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 7 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
appellant has raised hyper technical grounds and the present appeal is
an abuse of the process of law.
11. He further submitted that the complainant has clearly stated in
his cross-examination that he did not make any complaint prior to
16.03.2017 due to absence of any proof regarding payment of bribe.
He submitted that CO No. 07/2017 pertains to an entirely different
case.
12. The learned counsel for Respondent No.5 submitted that the
complainant has lodged only one complaint dated 16.03.2017 against
the appellant and Satvir, and Respondent No. 5 has stood firm by the
same in the trial.
ANALYSIS
13. The appellant has filed the present appeal under Section 341 of
the CrPC, which empowers the Appellate Court to direct withdrawal
of the complaint under Section 340 of the CrPC or, as the case may be,
to direct making of the complaint.
14. The limited question before this Court is whether the learned
Special Judge erred in not initiating the proceedings against the
respondents under Section 340 of the CrPC.
15. Before delving into the facts of the present case, it is imperative
for this Court to discuss the law in relation to Section 340 of the CrPC.
Section 340 of the CrPC provides for a preliminary inquiry, if the
Court deems it necessary, before lodging of a complaint when an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 8 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
application is made to it constituting allegations of the offences
mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, which provides for
prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for
offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents
given in evidence. The said provision reads as under:
“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.–(1) 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 152 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 of 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.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of
an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a
complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor
rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be
exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate
within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed–
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such
officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by
such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in
this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section
195.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 9 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
16. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chajoo Ram v. Radhey
Shyam and another : 1971 (1) SCC 774 had held that prosecution for
perjury should be sanctioned only when the perjury appears to be
deliberate and conscious and conviction is likely. It was further held
that it is to be seen if a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood is
made out in the facts of the case. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced hereunder:
“7. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts
only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and
conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No
doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil
which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start
prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due
care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material
defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is
considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the
delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in
the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must
be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of
substance and the court should be satisfied that there is
reasonable foundation for the charge. In the present case we do
not think the material brought to our notice was sufficiently
adequate to justify the conclusion that it is expedient in the
interests of justice to file a complaint. The approach of the High
Court seems some- what mechanical and superficial: it does not
reflect the requisite judicial deliberation: it seems to have ignored
the fact that the appellant was a Panch and authorised to act as
such and his explanation was not implausible. The High Court
further appears to have failed to give requisite weight to the order
of the District Magistrate which was confirmed by the Sessions
Judge, in which it was considered inexpedient to initiate
prosecution on the charge of alleged false affidavit that the
appellant had not acted as Sarpanch during the period of the stay
order. The subject-matter of the charge before the District
Magistrate was substantially the same as in the present case.
Lastly, there is also the question of long lapse of time of more
than ten years since the filing of the affidavit which is the
subject-matter of the charge. This factor is also not whollySignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 10 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
irrelevant for considering the question of expediency of initiating
prosecution for the alleged perjury. In view of the nature of the
alleged perjury in this case this long delay also militates against
expediency of prosecution. And then by reason of the pendency of
these proceedings since 1962 and earlier similar proceedings
before the District Magistrate also the appellant must have
suffered both mentally and financially. In view of all these
circumstances we are constrained to allow the appeal and set aside
the order directing complaint to be filed.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah :
(2005) 4 SCC 370, it was observed that the Court is not bound to
make a complaint in every case and the discretion is to be exercised
only when it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so. It was held
that the expediency has to be ascertained on the basis of the impact
which is caused upon administration of justice. The relevant portion of
the judgment is as under:
“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 ofSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 11 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
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. The broad
view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the
appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged
document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation
where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be
discarded.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In the present case, the appellant has raised a number of factors
to allege that there were a plethora of manipulations in the evidence
adduced by the prosecution which warrant prosecution against the
respondents, including officials of the investigating agency and the
complainant, for offences under Sections 193, 195, 196, 204 and 211
of the IPC. The aforesaid offences pertain to giving false evidence,
threatening to give false evidence, using evidence that is known to be
false, destruction of document to prevent its production as evidence
and institution of false charge of offence made with intent to injure.
19. Considering the nature of the allegations and the outcome of the
trial, this Court finds merit in the argument raised by the learned
Special Public Prosecutor for CBI that the arguments agitated in the
application under Section 340 of the CrPC essentially relate to the
defence raised by the appellant in the trial. Being cognizant of the fact
that the appeal filed by the appellant against conviction is pending
adjudication before this Court, this Court shall now examine the
merits of the appellant’s contentions for the limited purpose of
ascertaining as to whether it would be expedient in the interests of
justice to direct prosecution against the respondents by making a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 12 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
complaint. It is clarified that while the contentions made by the
appellant herein in relation to alleged discrepancies and manipulations
may not find favour of this Court in relation to making a complaint
under Section 340 of the CrPC, however, the same may cast doubt on
whether the case of the prosecution has been established beyond
reasonable doubt, which will be seen by the Court at the time of
considering the merits of the appeal. Any plausible explanations on
part of prosecution in relation to the allegations of the appellant may
make it so that it is not expedient to direct prosecution against the
respondents, but such discrepancies and infirmities in the case of the
prosecution may be sufficient for exoneration of the accused.
20. Firstly, it is argued on behalf of the appellant that there is some
manipulation and over writing in the date of the complaint (on the
basis of which the case came to be registered) wherein the digit ‘2’ has
been overwritten as ‘3’, making the date-16.03.2017. The learned
Special Judge, in the impugned order, has observed as under in this
regard:
“12. The first contention of Ld. Counsel for applicant is that two
complaints have been made by the complainant and the
complainant had overwritten the digit “2” as “3” in the date
mentioned on his complaint, Ex. PW8/ A. Counsel for applicant
failed to explain as to how he has inferred that two complaints
were made. If the complainant had overwritten the aforesaid digit
then there was no need to file second complaint. Further the
overwriting on digit “2” does not have any implication and it
appears simply for the reason that someone had inadvertently
wrote wrong month and thereafter corrected by over writing.
Even otherwise, it cannot be believed that complaint was made on
16.02.2017 as it contains certain facts which had occurred after
16.02.2017. The demand for No Dues Certificate was made by theSignature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 13 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
complainant only on 06.03.2017 after deposit of interest charges
on account of late payment, which is clear from note dated
06.03.2017, Ex. DW4/PX1 and note dated 10.03.2017, Ex.
PW4/D, thus there was no question of demanding No Dues
Certificate prior to 06.03.2017 and thus this fact cannot be part of
complaint allegedly made on 16.02.2017 and can only be
mentioned in the complaint made on 16.03.2017. Further at the
bottom of the complaint date was written as 16.03.2017 which
further corroborate the fact that complaint was made on
16.03.2017. Further it is difficult to understand if some one
changes the date in his complaint by overwriting, how the same
would be an offence. No offence is made out under the given facts
and circumstances.”
(emphasis supplied)
21. It is argued that the admitted overwriting lends credence to the
defence of the appellant that there were two complaints, and further,
that the learned Special Judge erroneously found that there could have
been no demand prior to 06.03.2017 as the complainant has stated that
he had paid some bribe amount to co-accused Satvir in February, 2017
itself. As far as the argument in relation to alleged demands dating
back to February, 2017 are concerned, in his statement under Section
161 of the CrPC, the complainant has stated that the initial bribe was
sought for tracing the file by accused Satvir, who has been acquitted.
The complaint on the other hand is in relation to bribe asked for giving
“No Dues Certificate”, which could have only asked for after
06.03.2017 after deposit of interest charges. As also rightly pointed
out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI, the complainant
has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he had not made
any complaint prior to 16.03.2017 as he had no proof. Most
importantly, it is not the case of the appellant that there is overwriting
on the bottom of the complaint as well, which clearly mentions the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 14 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
date as 16.03.2017. This lends favour to the observation of the learned
Special Judge that the over writing seems to be merely an inadvertent
error. The error does not seem deliberate or done with the intent to
falsify evidence.
22. Secondly, it is argued that the CO number has been wrongly
mentioned in the verification report. The learned Special Judge, in the
impugned order, has observed that CBI has tendered a plausible
explanation for the same that the error was merely a typographical
error. It was also noted that the transcription attached with the
verification report contains the correct CO number and para 3 of the
report also mentions the correct CO number. The said aspect had also
been dealt in the judgment on conviction where it was noted that the
crime register clearly shows that the wrong CO number of 7/17 is
bearing the name of informant-‘Sandeep Kumar’. It is pertinent to
note that Respondent No.3, who was the verification officer, had
deposed that the error was caused inadvertently. This Court finds the
said explanation to be logical. The error in this regard seems to be due
to inadvertence.
23. Thirdly, it is argued that there are certain discrepancies in the
statements of Respondent No.3 and Respondent No.1 in relation to
when Respondent No.3 found out about the error in the CO number in
the verification report. While Respondent No.1 stated that he had
informed Respondent No.3 of the error in the CO number at the time
of handing over the verification memo and told Respondent No.2 of
the same when his statement was recorded, Respondent No.3 stated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 15 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
that he found out about the error only in Court and Respondent No.2
stated that he had verified the complaint section and crime section and
then recorded the statement of Respondent No.3. The aforesaid
discrepancies can stem more error in memory of the officials. To err is
human and the officials cannot be expected to have perfect memory.
Merely on account of these minute discrepancies, it cannot be
concluded that the intent of the said officials was to adduce false
evidence. The aforesaid discrepancies are even otherwise trivial in
nature and do not have any substantial bearing on the overall
administration of justice.
24. Fourthly, it is also argued that the name of the Suraj Mehto has
been mentioned in the CO Register, even though, his name only
cropped up during the trap proceedings. As per CBI, the entry was
made in the CO Register after trap proceedings had been conducted. It
is argued that if the CO Register entry was based on the trap
proceedings, then there was no reason for mention of the name of co-
accused Satvir who was absent at the time when the trap was done.
The learned Special Judge has noted that while the complete entry in
CO Registry should have been made at the time of filing the
complaint, however, as noted in the judgment on conviction, the same
is merely a procedural irregularity and does not affect the case of the
prosecution. It is pertinent to note that the said aspect is easily
explainable. The CBI has admitted that the entry was made after trap
proceedings, wherein, it appears that the name of co-accused Satvir
was also mentioned as he is named in the complaint and the name of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 16 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
Suraj Mehto was mentioned as he took ₹500 out of the bribe amount.
The same does not show commission of any offence to falsify the
evidence.
25. Fifthly, it is argued that there is some overwriting in the CO
register of the name of the verifying officer as well as the CO number.
It is again argued that the CO number has been wrongly mentioned
here as CO7-17. It is argued that there was no occasion of rewriting
and cutting in the CO register. As discussed above, the CO 7/17
pertains to a different matter and it appears that the wrong CO number
was written erroneously. The reply by CBI mentions that the entries
wee made in a natural way by the custodian of the Crime Register in
pencil and later by pen. The said argument seems logical. I have
perused the black and white copy of the register as annexed in the
appeal. A coloured copy is also placed on record which shows that the
haziness is borne out of pencil marks not being erased properly rather
than rewriting. In the opinion of this Court, the said argument is also
unmerited and does not show commission of any of the offences as
mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC so as to merit registration
of complaint.
26. Much emphasis has also been laid by the appellant on the fact
that the learned Special Judge dismissed the application without
conducting any enquiry into the allegations raised by him. While an
appropriate inquiry can be ordered under Section 340 of the CrPC in
case cogent allegations are put forth in relation to commission of one
of the offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, however,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 17 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56
as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh
Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (supra), it is not necessary that the
Court has to order such an inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC in
every case. It is a settled law that the Court may refrain from passing
any order in regard to filing of false evidence if it is not expedient in
the interest of justice. In the facts of the present case, considering the
nature of allegations made in the application, this Court finds that
there was no need for an inquiry and the learned Special Judge
committed no error in dismissing the application on the basis of the
material on record without conducting the same.
27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this Court,
the learned Special Judge in the impugned order has given due
consideration to the contentions raised by the appellant and rightly
concluded that it is not expedient in the interests of justice to direct
making of a complaint under Section 340 of the CrPC. The impugned
order thus warrants no interference.
28. The present appeal is dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
29. It is again clarified that the observations made in the present
judgment are only for ascertaining the expediency of directing
prosecution under Section 340 of the CrPC and the same shall have no
bearing on the merits of the appellant’s defences in his appeal.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J
JUNE 27, 2025
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:KAMALDEEP
KAUR CRL.A. 797/2023 Page 18 of 18
Signing Date:30.06.2025
18:16:56