SATISH KUMAR MODI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A common thread, which runs through the above -captioned four petitions, is that these petitions spring out of proceedings in FIR No. 31/2005 for the offences under Sections 406/409/418/420/120B of IPC, registered at police station Palam Airport, Delhi. Since the facts in the above captioned four petitioners are so intertwined, therefore, these petitions were heard together and are being disposed of by one common order.

(2.) IN the above captioned first petition [Crl. M.C. No.1089/2012], an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner has been dismissed by trial Court and learned Revisional Court vide impugned order of 14th March, 2012 has maintained trial court's order dismissing petitioner's aforesaid application.

(3.) ON behalf of complainant/first -informant -Milanpur Steel Ltd. of FIR No. 31/2005 reliance was placed upon Apex Court's decision in Subhash Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & ors. (2000) 9 SCC 356 & P T Rajan Vs. State by Inspector of Life Insurance Corporation 1997 Law Suit (Mad) 549 by learned senior counsel to support the impugned order and to contend that even upon taking petitioner's application / complaint as it is, it cannot be said that suppression amount to perjury. Thus, dismissal of above captioned first petition is sought.