GURUDEEP KAUR S NAIR Vs. SANGEETA BHASIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the impugned order passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Forum in Consumer Complaint No. 512/2009 whereby on the application presented on 22.8.2009 by the O.P. Learned District Consumer Forum was pleased to direct that prayer of the O.P. to initiate action under Section 340 read with 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) shall be considered at the time of final hearing and not earlier as insisted upon by the O.P. in the Forum below. It is this order which has been sought to be impugned by the org. O.P. by filing this Revision Petition. We heard Mr. Ajay Panicker, Advocate for the petitioners.

(2.) THE respondent had filed consumer complaint against the O.P. -M/s. Gurdeep Komalan and Associates alleging deficiency in service on the part of O.P. Respondent had given contract to the O.P. -Firm for interior decoration and there appears to be some dispute between the complainant on one hand and M/s. Gurdeep Komalan and Associates on the other hand which gave rise to filing of complaint by Ms. Sangeeta Bhasin against O.P. who is petitioner herein. During pendency of complaint, an application was moved by the O.P. dated 22.8.2009 that the Forum below should initiate action against the complainant under Section 340 read with 195 of Cr.P.C. Since according to the O.P., the complainant had fabricated some documents and committed forgery and, therefore, immediate action should be taken under Section 340 read with 195 of Cr.P.C. Such type of application was earlier moved by the same O.P. on 5.2.2009 the then President of the District Consumer Forum passed an order to the effect that this application shall be heard at final hearing of the complaint. By moving application dated 22.8.2009, O.P. requested the Learned District Consumer Forum that action under Section 340 read with195 of Cr.P.C. should be immediately initiated on the ground that complainant had fabricated certain documents and legal action as contemplated under Sections 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C. should be initiated. The learned District Consumer Forum after hearing both the Counsel observed that this application dated 22.8.2009 was affirmed on 4.4.2007, but filed in the Forum below after two years. So, O.P. took such laxity in moving application which was affirmed two years back and now O.P. was insisting that immediate action should he taken against the complainant for having fabricating certain documents. Learned District Consumer Forum observed that its learned predecessor has rightly thought that at an interim stage it was not possible to decide whether complainant had fabricated certain documents. Correctness and genuineness of those documents could be considered at the time of hearing the main complaint itself. The order passed by the District Consumer Forum on 5.9.2009 to the effect that this application shall be "heard at final hearing" was not challenged by filing any Revision Petition and, therefore, the said order became final and when that order is still in vogue, the O.P. again filed similar application dated 22.8.2009 and insisted the District Consumer Forum to initiate action under Sections 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C. The learned District Consumer Forum in the circumstances rightly held that it was not inclined to hear application dated 22.8.2009 before final hearing of the complaint and his application shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the complaint. The learned District Consumer Forum made a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the O.P. and held that said Apex Court ruling did not observe that the application when presented under Section 340 read with 195 of Cr.P.C. should be decided forthwith or immediately.

(3.) WE are of the view that the order passed by the Forum below on application dated 22.8.2009 is sustainable in law. It is just, proper and we find no merit in the Revision Petition to initiate action under Section 340 read with 195 of Cr.P.C. against the party having allegedly committed forgery or perjury or fabrication of documents which are to be used in a judicial proceeding. This sort of action is required to be initiated at the fag end of the trial and such order can be passed only after the Court is satisfied that the party to the proceeding has deliberately committed forgery or fabricated documents to suit her purpose and she did so with the intention to secure favourable order from the Court in any judicial proceeding. Nothing of this sort has been established on record by the revisionist before the Forum below before moving the application dated 22.8.2009 and the learned District Consumer Forum relying upon its learned predecessor s earlier direction simply held that this application will be considered at the time of final hearing of the complaint. In the circumstances, the order passed by the Forum below, which is impugned in this Revision Petition by the org. O.P. is appearing to be legal and proper and the learned District Consumer Forum has not committed any impropriety or illegality in doing so. Learned District Consumer Forum exercised the jurisdiction vested with it rightly and properly and it does not call for any interference by this Commission exercising revision power under Section 17(l)(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. We are, therefore, finding no substance in Revision Petition. As such, we pass the following order: ORDER