Delhi High Court Dismisses Applications Challenging Validity of Petitions in Yashovardhan Birla Case
Delhi High Court Dismisses Applications Challenging Validity of Petitions in Yashovardhan Birla Case
The Delhi High Court has dismissed applications filed by Kamdhenu Enterprises Limited and M/s Jads Services Private Limited challenging the validity of petitions filed by Yashovardhan Birla, Chairman of the Yash Birla Group, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act).
In this case, Kamdhenu Enterprises Ltd. and M/s Jads Services Pvt. Ltd. filed applications seeking to dismiss Yashovardhan Birla’s petitions under Section 138 of the NI Act, alleging fraud. Additionally, they sought the initiation of proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) to quash the cases filed by Yashovardhan Birla in the court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, Delhi.
The arguments of the counsels of applicants were centred on the non-applicant’s alleged concealment of prior petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking similar relief as in the current petitions. Both sets of petitions sought essentially the same relief, an undeniable fact. The earlier petitions were disposed of by a Single Judge of this Court vide order dated August 14, 2014.
In its judgment, the single-judge bench of Justice Amit Sharma cited the case of Arunima Baruah v. Union of India and Ors., in which it was held that the court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction only if there is a suppression of a material fact.
Addressing the claim of alleged suppression of facts related to previous petitions filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court underlined that for suppression to be considered material, it must have a direct bearing on the rights of the parties in determining the merits of the case. The Court observed that the order from the previous petitions did not dictate the outcome of the current lis and merely permitted withdrawal with the option to raise contentions before the Metropolitan Magistrate. Consequently, the Court concluded that the alleged suppression did not influence the determination of the present case’s merits.
The Court further noted that the present applications lacked any assertion regarding the impact of withholding information about the earlier petitions and the order on the merits of the case. The Court opined that the order did not constitute res judicata between the parties.
The Court thus concluded that the omission of information about the earlier petitions and their withdrawal did not constitute deliberate concealment. It stressed that the prosecution of perjury should be limited to instances where there is clear evidence of deliberate and conscious perjury, and where there is a clear indication of an offence being committed. The Court also emphasised the requirement of exceptional circumstances and concrete evidence of deliberate perjury to initiate contempt proceedings. Based on these observations, the Court dismissed the present applications.
