ARUN DHAWAN Vs. LOKESH DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of order dated 18.9.2013 of the Company Law Board whereby the Company Law Board while holding that the document, i.e., Resolution of Board of Directors dated 16.8.2010 filed by the Respondent (Petitioner in the Company Petition) was a forgery, refused to proceed further with the application filed by the Appellant (Respondent in the Company Petition) to initiate action and prosecute the Respondent for perjury and contempt. The Company Law Board dismissed the application relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in IQBAL SINGH MARWAH V. MEENAKSHI MARWAH, 2005 4 SCC 370 and held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC was attracted only when the offences, enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in any court during the time the s ame was in custodial legis. The Company Law Board further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of SACHIDA NAND SINGH & ANR. VS. STATE OF BIHAR & ANR., 1998 2 SCC 493 and held that it would be strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reaches the court.

(2.) The application filed by the Appellant for prosecuting the Respondent (Petitioner before the CLB) for perjury was premised not only on the facts that the document was forged and fabricated but that the Respondent by filing and relying on the said forged and fabricated document induced the Court to believe that the Respondent was having a higher shareholding.

(3.) It is an admitted position of the parties that the said document is forged and fabricated. The Respondent contends that the document was handed over to the Respondent by the Appellant himself and believing the document to be correct , the document was relied upon and filed by the Respondent in Court. On the other hand, the contention of the Appellant is that the Respondent forged and fabricated the document and filed pleadings duly verified and affirmed based on the said forged and fabricated document knowing that the document was forged and fabricated and thereby inducing the Court in entertaining the petition.