JUSTICE P.T. ASHA A.No.944 of 2020 in C.S.No.212 of 2017 1.—Therefore a prima facie case for lodging a complaint under Section 340 of the Code has been made out by the applicant. 31. Therefore, directions are issued to the Registrar General, Madras High Court, to initiate the complaint against the respondent.

[10/7, 13:29] Sekarreporter 1: A.No.944 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 13.08.2020
Delivered on : 01.10.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
A.No.944 of 2020
in
C.S.No.212 of 2017
1.P.S.Kirubakaran
2.P.S.Anandan … Applicants
Vs
1.Azizul Karim … Respondent
Prayer: Judges Summons filed under Order XIV Rule 8 of Rules of High
Court, 1994 r/w Section 195 and 340 of CrpC to issue suitable direction to
the officer of this Court to file criminal complaint against the plaintiff /
Azizuk Karim before the appropriate forum for the offence of perjury,
production of forged and fabricated document in judicial proceedings and
commission of an offence punishable under Section 463, 464, 420, 468,
471 and 465 of Indian Penal Code.
1/36
[10/7, 13:30] Sekarreporter 1: A.No.944 of 2020
Therefore, any person found guilty of causing perjury, has to be dealt with
seriously as it is necessary for the working of the court as well as for the
benefit of the public at large.”
29. In the Judgement reported in (2019) 6 SCC 477 – Sasikala
Pushpa and others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the Honourable Supreme
Court had observed that there can be no two views about the proposition
that even if forgery is committed outside the precincts of the Court and
long before its production into Court, it would also be treated as one
affecting the administration of justice.
30. If the allegations about the fabrication of the agreement of sale
and receipts (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6) are found to be true, in the case on hand, it
is nothing but perjury as these documents have not only been filed but
have also been marked as exhibits through the respondent as P.W.1. The
respondent has marked the documents after swearing to the truth and
validity of the documents. Not only has the respondent instituted the suit
on the basis of forged and fabricated documents but has also manipulated
34/36
[10/7, 13:30] Sekarreporter 1: A.No.944 of 2020
the service of notice on the applicants and the other defendants with the
intent of snatching an ex parte decree. Even here the respondent has
manipulated the administration of Justice. The respondent has also not
chosen to deny any of the statements made in the affidavit filed in support
of the petition. Therefore a prima facie case for lodging a complaint under
Section 340 of the Code has been made out by the applicant.

31. Therefore, directions are issued to the Registrar General, Madras
High Court, to initiate the complaint against the respondent.

01.10.2020
Internet : Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Speaking / Non-Speaking
kan
35/36

You may also like...

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Now ButtonCALL ME
WP Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com