HARIKRISHNA JHAVER Vs. RAM NARAYAN BHATTAD MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the order of the learned Judge of this Court directing the Registrar to prefer a Complaint against the appellant before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for offences punishable under Ss.193 and 199, I.P.C.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the. appeal are as follows: In C.S.No.28 of 1975, a money decree was made against one B.D. Goenka and B.D. Mimani personally and the legal representatives of one R.S. Jhaver to the extent of the estate inherited by them from the late R.S. Jhaver. THE decree holder was the General Electric Company of India. THE said decree holder filed E.P.No.78 of 1980 for executing the decree against B.D. Goenka, B.D. Mimani and the legal representatives of R.S. Jhaver. Pending the execution proceedings, the decree holder assigned the decree in favour of the respondent.

(3.) AFTER impleading himself in the execution proceedings the respondent-assignee decree holder filed Appln. No.5390 of 1985 in E.P.No.78 of 1980 under S.340, Crl. P.C., requesting the Court for a direction tot he Registrar to file a Complaint to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Madras for prosecuting respondents 6 to 11 in that application who are the legal representatives of deceased R.S. Jhaver on the ground that they have committed offences punishable under Ss.193, 196, 199 and 200, I.P.C. by filing an affidavit in Appln. No. 4218 of 1983 in E.P.No.78 of 1980 containing false allegations that they had not obtained any property from late R.S. Jhaver, and that, therefore, the execution petition could not be proceeded against them. Their further contention was that the allegation that they had not obtained any property was a deliberate falsehood knowing fully well that it is false. The learned Judge accepted this contention of the respondents and directed the Registrar to prefer a Complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. However, the learned Judge stated that the, appellant who swore to the counter affidavit in Appln. No. 4218 of 1983 alone was guilty of making false representation and the other legal representatives are not liable to be proceeded against for offences states above on the ground that though the affidavit is filed on their behalf also, it cannot be stated that they have subscribed to that false allegation knowingly. It is against this order the appellant has preferred the present appeal.