Court on its own motion vs Inder Singh

Dev Darshan Sud, J.—In F.A.O. No. 242 of 2006 decided on 13.11.2009, this Court while disposing the appeal, held that:

Before parting with the case, I must observe that only the imposition of exemplary costs is not sufficient. Here are two persons who have told blatant lies in Court. The owner and the driver first took a specific plea in the written statement that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger. This was the suggestion put to the claimant in cross-examination. Lateron they changed their stand and made a false statement on oath. Persons who make such false statements cannot be permitted to go scot free. Therefore, I am prima-facie of the view that criminal proceedings for having committed perjury should be initiated against the Respondents for having made a false statement in Court. However, before initiating the proceedings, I feel that it would be appropriate that notice is issued to the owner (Rajinder Singh S/o Shri Hari Ram R/o Village and Post Office Parala, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla, H.P.) and driver (Inder Singh S/o Shri Dila Ram R/o Village Dhalli, Post Office Parala, Tehsil Theog, District Shimla) to show cause why proceedings for perjury be not initiated against them. The registry is directed to register two separate cases and issue notice to the aforesaid persons. Alongwith the notice a copy of this judgment shall also be sent. Notice be made returnable for January 11, 2010.

Pursuant to the notice issued to the Respondent, he filed reply. I have perused the reply and I am not satisfied that the Respondent has been able to make out a case for dropping proceedings for perjury proposed to be taken against him. His reply is evasive and not specific. In these circumstances, let appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for perjury be initiated against the Respondent by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla. The parties to appear before the Court on 30th April, 2010, on which date further proceedings in accordance with law shall be initiated against the Respondent. Let the record of this appeal be sent to the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, forthwith. It is clarified that in case the Respondent does not appear, his presence shall be procured through coercive process. This order does not pre-empt the learned Tribunal to arrive at its independent findings after due trial as I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.