RAKESH SONI vs MESSRS AKASH ELECTRONICS AND SOFTWARE

THE respondent has moved one application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Cr.P.C. for brief) for taking an action against the applicant for filing a false affidavit to the effect that he has not approached the Forum created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the C.P. Act for brief) on the same subject-matter and on the same cause of action. THE applicant has filed his reply and has resisted this application on several grounds. THE respondent has filed its rejoinder thereto.

IT would be quite proper to look at the factual backdrop giving rise to this application. The applicant has filed this compensation application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (the MRTP Act for brief) for claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 3,15,000/- with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of the application till payment. Regulation 77 of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission Regulations, 1991 (the Regulations for brief) requires an application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act to be supported by an affidavit inter alia declaring that no application has been filed by the applicant either before this Commission or before the Forum created under the C.P. Act in respect of the same subject-matter. An affidavit to that effect has been filed alongwith this application as required by Regulation 77 of the Regulations. According to the respondent, the affidavit accompanying the present compensation application in that regard is false. It may be noted that the compensation application is based on the charge of adoption of and indulgence in unfair trade practices on the part of the respondent qua purchase of one computer system by the applicant from the respondent under invoice No. 222 dated 28th September, 1996 for Rs. 1,15,000/-. The subject-matter of the compensation application is thus the computer system purchased by the applicant from the respondent. The cause of action for filing the compensation application is supply of a defective computer system. The application is filed by the applicant, named, Rakesh Soni, as a partner of Messrs Natraj Motors. The invoice annexed to the compensation application shows the name of the buyer Messrs Natraj Motors. It thus becomes clear that the computer system in question was purchased by the partnership firm in the name and style of Messrs Natraj Motors.

The respondent has filed its reply and has resisted the compensation application on various grounds. It has inter alia contended that the respondent has moved the Consumer Forum at Delhi under the C.P. Act on the same subject-matter and on the same cause of action and the complaint application before the Consumer Forum has been registered as Complaint Case No. 2399/97 and it is pending before District Forum-II. It has further stated that the said complaint application before the Consumer Forum came up for hearing before the competent Consumer Forum on 18th April, 1998 and was then fixed for further proceeding on 24th November, 1998. According to the respondent, the applicant has filed a false affidavit to the effect that no Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act has been moved by or on behalf of the applicant before this Commission. The respondent has, therefore, moved this application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. for taking an appropriate action against the applicant for filing such false affidavit.

IN his reply to the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C, the applicant has come out with a case that he had no knowledge about the pendency of any proceeding filed by the respondent when the application for compensation alongwith the affidavit was filed in this Commission. IN his reply, the applicant has clearly and categorically stated that he has not suppressed anything from this Commission and has rightly filed the application and the affidavit. In support of its application the respondent has brought to our notice a copy of the summons received by it from the Consumer Forum. It pertains to case registered under Complaint Case No. 2399/97 filed by Messrs Natraj Motors against the present respondent and the summons is from Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II. At the time of hearing, learned Advocate Mr. Satya Narain for the applicant has stated in no uncertain terms that the said summons refers to the complaint application filed by the present applicant against the present respondent on the same subject-matter and on the same cause of action. It thus becomes clear that the applicant has filed a false affidavit to the effect that he has not approached the Forum under the C.P. Act on the same subject-matter and on the same cause of action. It may be noted that, with a view to hoodwinking this Commission, the applicant has filed this compensation application in his name styling himself as a partner of Messrs Natraj Motors whereas the complaint application before the Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act is shown to be by Messrs Natraj Motors. This attempt on the part of the applicant prima facie shows his malicious intention. Presumably, with a view to showing that the proceeding before the Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act is different from the proceeding before this Commission, this device of filing the proceeding in different names before this Commission and before the Consumer Forum under the C.P. Act appears to have resorted to. That further lends support to my prima facie conclusion that it is deliberately done with a view to misleading this Commission for the purpose of the affidavit under Regulation 77 of the Regulations.

SECTION 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the I.P.C. for brief) defines "giving false evidence". Filing a false affidavit would, therefore, fall within the purview of SECTION 191 thereof. SECTION 193 thereof provides for punishment for giving false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding. The applicant/complainant can, therefore, be said to be guilty of the offence punishable under SECTION 193 of the I.P.C. It cannot be gainsaid that the proceeding initiated by means of a compensation application under Section 12B of the MRTP Act would be a judicial proceeding for the purposes of Section 12(2) thereof and this Commission shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purposes of Section 195 of the Cr. P.C. It may be noted that, by virtue of Section 13B of the MRTP Act, this Court is deemed to be a High Court for the purposes of its contempt jurisdiction. It can, therefore, be said to be a High Court and this Commission can direct an officer of this Commission to launch prosecution by means of a complaint as provided in Section 340(3)(a) of the Cr. P.C.

IT appears that often unscrupulous persons make false affidavit in order to circumvent some statutory provision. When an unscrupulous trader takes recourse to such a device in a judicial proceeding with a view to abusing the process of law and with a view to hoodwinking this Commission, the situation becomes all the more agravated. Such an attempt on the part of unscrupulous persons has to be nipped in the bud. IT is in public interests to do so with a view to providing a deterrent effect to public in general and such unscrupulous persons in particular. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this is a fit case for exercising powers under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

IN view of our aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the application made by and on behalf of the respondent under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. deserves to be accepted. It deserves to be directed that a complaint should be made by this Commission through its officer to the competent Court against the applicant herein for an offence punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C. In the result, this application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is accepted. The Joint Director (Legal) of this Commission is directed to launch a complaint in writing before the competent Court charging the original applicant with an offence punishable under Section 193 of the I.P.C. The applicant/complainant is directed to appear before the competent Court as and when the process is issued by such competent Court on the basis of the complaint made to it under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. as aforesaid. The conversant person from the respondent shall appear and give evidence in support of the complaint before the competent Court as and when summoned to do so. Application allowed.