MINADEVI GOVINDLAL PRAJAPATI Vs. UJAMSINH GANGARAM PUJARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT Appeal from Order is filed by the appellant-original plaintiff Civil Suit No. 2126 of 2007 quashing and setting aside the order dated 22. 7. 2008 passed by the learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad below Notice of Motion ( Exhs. 6 and 7) in Civil Suit No. 2126 of 2007, by which learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court has not only rejected the Notice Motion but passed the following order: this application is rejected. The plaintiff Meenaben G. Prajapati is directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- to each of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2, as special cost of this baseless interim application, within 30 days from today. Non-compliance will result in dismissal of the suit. The Registrar of this Court is hereby directed to lodge criminal compliant before the police station/ Court concerned against the plaintiff Meenaben and her two sisters: Naynaben and Varshaben, for the offence punishable under Sections 177, 181, 182, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code for false declaration on oath by submitting affidavits in this judicial proceedings. The Registrar, for drafting the complaint, is empowered to inspect the record of this suit and obtain copies thereof and also permitted, if he so desires, to take help of the learned Government Pleader for proper drafting of the complaint. The Registrar is directed to submit his report in this regard within 30n days from today. Copy of this order be sent to the Registrar of this Court as well as the Government Pleader immediately. Shri H. R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that learned Chamber Judge, City Civil Court was not justified in passing the order directing to lodge criminal compliant before the Police Station / Court concerned against the plaintiff Meenaben and her two sisters : Naynaben and Varshaben for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 181, 182, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, therefore, it is requested to quash and set aside the direction. It is further submitted that if such a direction is quashed at this stage, with respect to filing / lodging the criminal complaint is differed at this stage till final disposal of the suit, the appellant will be satisfied.

(2.) HAVING heard Shri H. R. Prajapati, learned advocate for the applicant / appellant and Shri Shah and Shri Parikh, learned advocate for the respective respondents, considering the impugned order and the controversy, it appears to the Court that there is substance in the submission made by learned advocate Shri H. R. Prajapati, for the applicant/ appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the case, with respect to filing criminal complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 181, 182, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, it is required to be differed till the final disposal of the suit. If ultimately, on appreciation of evidence at the time of deciding the suit, if it is found that the persons who have submitted false affidavits / declaration in the judicial proceedings an appropriate criminal complaint be filed against such persons, therefore, it appears that such directions at this stage to lodge the criminal complaint is not warranted. Learned advocates for the respective respondents have also submitted the said question can be differed and the question with respect to filing the criminal complaint and the liberty can be reserved to initiate appropriate proceedings / criminal complaint by the learned trial Court at the time of disposing of the suit and on appreciation of evidence.

(3.) SO far as rejecting the Notice of Motion (Exhs. 6/7) on merits, considering the impugned order and the reasoning given by the learned Chamber Judge and same dose not warrant any interference of this Court. Even, the learned advocate appearing for the appellant/ applicant has also not pressed for quashing and the setting aside the impugned order and has mainly pressed for quashing and setting aside that part of the direction issued by the learned Chamber Judge with respect to lodging criminal complaint against the appellant/ applicant.