Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
8. In the aforesaid background and circumstances on record, it was submitted by the learned Additional Solicitor General:- (i) The investigation into the crime, lodged pursuant to FIR by the petitioner, was conducted fairly under the supervision of a Special Investigation Team headed by ACP Shweta Singh Chauhan. After due investigation, charge-sheet has also been filed; prompt steps were taken by the investigating agency and as such nothing further need be done in the present writ petition. (ii) The allegations made by the petitioner that a car had struck her and the suggestion that Respondent No.7 was instrumental for such incident were completely unsustainable. It was not a car but a thela mounted on a tricycle which had simply brushed against the petitioner. However, the petitioner deliberately flared it up to show as if it was Respondent No.7 who was behind the incident. (iii) On her own showing, she was aware that she was not hit by a car but by a thelabut she did not state the facts truthfully and correctly as she anticipated that the claim could be rubbished as a minor incident. Moreover, the petitioner used such minor and innocuous incident to make insinuations against Respondent No.7.
9. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj George, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that:- (i) Respondent No.7 belonged to police service and as such there was definite apprehension that the investigation into the crime pursuant to FIR lodged by the petitioner, would not be conducted in fair and transparent manner; (ii) The crime registered pursuant to the FIR lodged by the mother of Respondent No.7 was an indication of undue influence exerted by Respondent No.7, a police officer; (iii) Certain audio recording and video recording with the petitioner were not taken note of while conducting investigation; (iv) Complete data from two mobile phones of Respondent No.7 was not recovered while the mobile phone of the Investigator was completely damaged with the result there could be no retrieval of any data from the mobile phone of the Investigator; and (v) Soon after the petitioner was hit by a thela she had seen a car in the vicinity and therefore apprehended that it was an attempt on part of someone. ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]
10. The investigation into the crime registered pursuant to FIR No.58 of 2018 lodged by the petitioner was conducted by a Special Investigation Team headed by ACP Ms. Shweta Tiwari Singh and a charge-sheet has been filed. The apprehension that was expressed at some stage that the mobile phones belonging to Respondent No.7 were not being taken in custody, was dealt with by this Court and it was ensured that said mobiles would be in the custody of the investigating agency. The data from those mobiles was also sought to be recovered and it must be stated that Respondent No.7 did extend cooperation in ensuring that the data could be retrieved. However, the assertion on behalf of the petitioner is that complete data has not been retrieved. Both the mobile phones were also sent for forensic analysis. It is suggested by the petitioner that certain pictures may have been taken by Respondent No.7, which data is not presently available.
However, what has been extracted from iCloud is fully available with the investigating agency. The data, in any case, would at best point that at various stages there were exchanges and conversation between the petitioner and Respondent No.7 but what needs to be gone into at the appropriate stage is the basic submission that Respondent No.7 had taken undue advantage of the petitioner on the fateful night. The contention that the mobile phone of the Investigating Officer was damaged may not be material as details of any conversation between the petitioner and the Investigating Officer, may also be proved through the mobile phone of the petitioner herself. There is thus, nothing substantial which could either show that the investigation was not well directed or had failed to look into a particular direction. In our considered view, nothing further is required to be done. At this stage, it may be stated that if any video or audio recordings are still being retained by the petitioner, they may be handed over to the Special Investigation Team within two days from today. It is left to the Special Investigation Team to consider whether that parts needs to be dealt with in the supplementary charge-sheet which, as indicated above, is contemplated to be filed.
11. As regards the crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged by the mother of Respondent No.7, protection has been afforded to the petitioner and her family members and the application under Section 438 of the Code3has also been dealt with. An application filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code3 is presently pending with the High Court. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner has been invoking the processes of the court and adequate protection is being afforded to the petitioner and her ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] family members. We, therefore, do not see any reason why the matter presently pending pursuant to the FIR lodged by the mother of Respondent No.7 be transferred and investigation be entrusted to any other agency.
12. In the aforesaid circumstances we do not see any reason why investigation into both the aforesaid FIRs, at this stage, be entrusted to any Central Investigating Agency. All that we can say at this juncture is that the charge-sheet filed in the crime registered pursuant to FIR lodged by the petitioner shall be considered by the concerned court on its own merits and in accordance with law.
13. In the end, we must observe that the matter was considered by this Court only from the standpoint of ensuring that there was fair investigation into the crime registered pursuant to FIR filed by the petitioner and any observation made by us or directions issued by us shall not be considered as reflection on merits of the matter or on the quality of investigation. The matter shall be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law.
14. We may now refer to the development which occurred during the pendency of the writ petition. In FIR No. 314, as well as in the application preferred thereafter, insinuation was definitely made that Respondent No.7 was responsible for the incident that occurred on 17.10.2019. It was also submitted that the petitioner was hit by a car and suspicion was expressed in clear terms that Respondent No.7 was behind the episode. As it now turns out, she was not hit by a car but by a thela which prima facie means that the allegations in her sworn statement before this Court were not truthful.
15. Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under Section 181 of the IPC2while furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC2. These offences by virtue of Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code3 can be taken cognizance of by any court only upon a proper complaint in writing as stated in said Section. In respect of matters coming under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code3, in Pushpadevi M. Jatia vs. M.L. Wadhawan etc.4 prosecution was directed to be launched after prima facie satisfaction was recorded by this Court. 4 (1987) 3 SCC 367
16. It has also been laid down by this Court in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma5 that a person who makes an attempt to deceive the court, interferes with the administration of justice and can be held guilty of contempt of court. In that case a husband who had filed a fabricated document to oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of matrimonial proceedings was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to two weeks imprisonment. It was observed as under: “1.The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court’s atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court’s environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. 14. The legal position thus is that if the publication be with intent to deceive the court or one made with an intention to defraud, the same would be contempt, as it would interfere with administration of justice. It would, in any case, tend to interfere with the same. This would definitely be so if a fabricated document is filed with the aforesaid mens rea. In the case at hand the fabricated document was apparently to deceive the court; the intention to defraud is writ large. Anil Kumar is, therefore, guilty of contempt.” In K.D.
Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others6it was observed: “39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs.7 is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come 5 (1995) 1 SCC 421 6 (2008) 12 SCC 481 7 (1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA) with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.” In Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others8 filing of a false affidavit was the basis for initiation of action in contempt jurisdiction and the concerned persons were punished.
17. In the circumstances a notice is required to be issued to the petitioner in suomotu exercise of power of this Court “why action in contempt be not initiated against her and why appropriate direction be not passed under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the Code”3. The Registry is directed to register the matter as suomotu proceedings and send a copy of this Order to the Petitioner, who is directed to appear in-person before this Court on 14.01.2020.
18. With the aforesaid observations this writ petition stands disposed of. Devika Gujral Writ petition disposed of. ABCD v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 8 (1995) 3 SCC 757