RANBIR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been moved by Shri RK. Saini,. Advocate under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for initiating a criminal complaint under Sections 193/197/198/199/200 of Indian Penal Code against Shri Mohd. Saleem Siddiqui, Advocate. The allegations are that the applicant is an Advocate and being an Officer of the Court he deemed it his duty to bring to the knowledge of this Court about a serious offence committed by Sh Mohd Saleem Siddiqui, Advocate in the course of judicial proceedicgs. It is further alleged that Mr. Siddiqui filed criminal revision No. 98/89 which was listed for preliminary hearing on 25th April, 1989 and argued by him before Mrs. Santosh Duggal, J. The petition was dismissed in limini on the same date. Thereafter Mr. Siddiqui filed another criminal revision petition No. 107/89 on the same facts which was listed for preliminary hearing before me on 19-5-1989. It was admitted on the point of sentence only and was finally disposed of on 26-5-1989. I reduced the sentence awarded to the petitioner Ranbir Singh by the learned trial Magistrate. Instead of disclosing about the filing of, previous petition No. 98/89, Shri Siddiqui appended a certificate with the 'second revision petition certifying that, "No similar petition has been filed either in Supreme Court of India or in Delhi High Court". It is then alleged that Mr. Siddiqui bad done the same intentionally, deliberately and with a mala fide intention and knowingly played a fraud upon this Court. He concealed the material facts with intention to achieve wrongful gain. He is alleged to have falsely certified in the second revision petition that no revision petition had been filed earlier, and had, therefore, committed offences punishable under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant also came to know that Mr. Siddiqui had got changed the last page of the grounds of the second revision petition containing the aforesaid certificate and had introduced another page to show that he had disclosed about the previous petition. This fact came to the knowledge of the applicant when he applied for supply of certified Copies of both the petitions, The certified copy made available to him of the second revision petition clearly brought out that on the last page of the petition Mr. Siddiqui had certified that no similar petition had' been filed by him either in the Supreme Court of India or in Delhi High Court. Therefore, the applicant prayed that a criminal complaint may be lodged against Mr. Siddiqui.

(2.) The respondent Mr. Siddiqui by means of a reply controverted the allegations made in this petition. He stated that the petitioner was inimical towards him and be bad filed this petition just to take revenge from him. He also claims to have filed a criminal complaint against the petitioner under Sections 420/406/120-B of Indian Penal Code. Previously Mr. Saini wag an Advocate of the father of the answering respondent. His father had engaged him in various cases. After the death of his father, his attitude became hostile and be started contacting the debtors of the father of the respondent and incited them not to repay the debts and further that he could give them a valid discharge on the basis of blank papers signed and left by the father of the respondent during his life time with him. Respondent, thereafter, goes on to give details of some cases which were filed by the petitioner against him. On merits of the petition, the respondent denied having issued any certificate in second revision petition to the effect that no similar petition bad been filed by him either in the Supreme Court of India or in Delhi High Court. Rather he claims to have mentioned that the earlier revision petition had already been dismissed in limini by this Court. As such he denied being guilty of any intentional or deliberate fraud. He also denied having changed the last page of the grounds of second revision petition. He also claims to have directed the Stenographer at the time of drafting the second revision petition that he should title she second petition under Section 482 of the Code instead under Sections 397/401 of the Code. But in advertently the Stenographer did not mention it as a petition under Section 482 of the Coils. It is further staled in this reply that the Stenog rapher had changed the last page mentioning about the dismissal of the earlier petition but unfortunately he could nut remove the earlier page and in this manner both the pages remained in the file. Immediately thereafter Mr. Saini is alleged to have obtained the certified copy of that page and after obtaining the same he himself must have removed the other page from the file and levelled all these false allegations against the respondent.

(3.) I have heard arguments advanced by Sh. R.K. Saini and Sh. M S. Siddiqui.