Ashwani Kumar Bansal vs The Financial Commissioner and Another

R.S. Sodhi, J.—Admit.

By this Criminal Misc. (Main) 1163 of 1998 the petitioner seeks to challenge the Order of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, in Case No. 12/98-CA dated 16.1.1998 whereby, upon application being presented to the Financial Commissioner u/s 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code''), the Financial Commissioner rejected the same as having no jurisdiction to entertain such an application.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned counsel for the State. It is the case of the petitioner that the Financial Commissioner is a Revenue Court and, Therefore, being a Revenue Court, as defined u/s 195(3) of the Code, could initiate proceedings u/s 340 of the Code. Therefore, rejection of the application by the Financial Commissioner due to lack of jurisdiction was incorrect. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a resident of District Fatehgarh in the State of Punjab. His two minor children owned property situated in Delhi by virtue of a transfer made in their favor by the 2nd respondent their mother. The 2nd respondent remarried and thereafter filed a revision petition u/s 72 of the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 before the 1st respondent for setting aside the mutation order dated 14.1.1994. The aforesaid revision petition was numbered as Case No. 349 of 1996. It was alleged that in the revision petition the 2nd respondent deliberately gave false address of the petitioner and also obtained dusty notices for service. Two affidavits sworn on 1.3.1997 and 17.3.1997 were filed to show that service had been effected on the petitioner on 27.2.1997. It was alleged that these affidavits stating that notices had been refused, were false and the signatures obtained were a forgery. It was upon this filing of false affidavits and fabricating evidence that offence under Sections 191 and 192 punishable u/s 193 were alleged to have been made out. The 2nd respondent further became liable for having committed offence for adducing false and fabricated evidence, which she knew to be such, under Sections 191 and 192 punishable u/s 199 IPC. The petitioner, Therefore, on this premises filed an application dated 12.1.1998 before the 1st respondent u/s 340 of the Code praying for filing of a complaint against the 2nd respondent in terms of Section 195 of the Code. The learned Financial Commissioner by his order dated 16.1.1998 rejected the same on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to entertain such an application.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also counsel for the State, I am of the view that u/s 195(3) of the Code, the Court has been defined to mean a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a court for the purposes of this Section. This being so, the Financial Commissioner is a Court under the Delhi Land Revenue Act, 1954 and could have initiated proceedings u/s 340 of the Code. The order dated 16.1.1998 rejecting the application u/s 340 of the Code on the ground that it had no jurisdiction is bad. Consequently, the order dated 16.1.1998 of the Financial Commissioner, Delhi, in Case No. 12/98 CA is quashed and Criminal Misc. (Main) 1163 of 1998 is allowed.