Prem Prakash Dabral v. State & Ors.

1. This is an application under Section 340, Cr.P.C filed by Smt. Shikha Dabral, Respondent No.5 in the Test case no. 40 of 2012, a petition for probate of the registered Will of Sh. Kali Prasad Dabral, dated 29th October

2004. The said petition has been allowed, in favour of the Petitioner, by this court on 15th May 2019, whereby Petitioner has been granted Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.

2. In the present application, it is claimed that the non-applicant Petitioner has deliberately tried to mislead and cheat this Hon'ble court by stating on oath that Sh. Kali Prasad Dabral (the deceased) was a resident of C-1/35, Janakpuri, New Delhi, whereas in the death certificate of the deceased, the place of death has been recorded as A-3/201, Janakpuri, New Delhi and it is 2019:DHC:2643 pointed out that the Will also records that the deceased was residing at A- 3/201, Janakpuri, New Delhi, at the time of making the Will. The applicant has further contended that Petitioner has stated in the petition that no other suit or proceedings are pending before this court or any other court seeking administration of estate of the deceased. By doing so the Petitioner deliberately and intentionally gave false statement to conceal /suppress from this Hon'ble Court that he had filed RSA No. 190/2011 in the this court. This appeal has been filed against the orders of the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court that granted possessory rights over C-1/35, Janakpuri, New Delhi, to the Respondent No.5.

3. Per contra, the non-applicant/Petitioner, in his reply to the present application has denied the allegations. It is stated that the Death certificate clearly records the permanent address of late Sh. Kali Prasad as C-1/35, Janak Puri, New Delhi and the Will in Para - 1 records the residence of the deceased at C-1/35, Janak Puri, New Delhi. Further, non-disclosure of pendency of RFA No. 190 of 2011 is explained by stating that the said proceedings have no bearing with the probate petition and both proceedings are distinct and separate from each other.

4. It is settled law that, every case of falsehood proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. ought to be resorted to. It must be resorted to only in rare cases where it is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice (Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190 and Patel Laljibhai Somabhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1971 SC 1935). In the present case, it cannot be said that the Petitioner deliberately concealed the pendency of RFA 190/2011 filed by it or that he wrongly stated the place of residence of the deceased. Nothing has been brought out in evidence to suggest that the Petitioner has committed perjury which would require initiation of action under Sec. 340 Cr.P.C. Thus, this court does not find it expedient in the interest of justice to proceed under this provision in the present case.

5. Accordingly the application is dismissed.