Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kurian Joseph and Rohinton Fali Nariman JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The scope of this appeal is limited to the challenge on legality of the proceedings Under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "the Code") initiated by the High Court as part of the impugned judgment dated 12th/13th April, 2016 in Appeal from Order No. 489 of 2013 on the file of the High Court of Gujarat. The appeal before the High Court arose from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad declining to grant an interim injunction, in Civil Suit No. 28 of 2012. Having extensively referred to the materials on record, the High Court after elaborately considering the arguments, by a detailed judgment, dismissed the appeal, confirming the order passed by the trial court. The Plaintiff/Respondent had also approached this Court by way of a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14478 of 2016. The said Special Leave Petition has been dismissed on 15.11.2016 as not pressed on the submission that the parties have reached an amicable settlement on the issue.
3. The High Court, on account of the contradictory stand taken by the Appellant herein who was the first Respondent before the High Court (Defendant No. 1 in the Suit), took the view that the conduct of the Appellant has affected the administration of justice, and therefore, it was expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint against the Appellant Under Section 340 of the Code.
4. It is necessary to refer to the relevant paragraphs in the judgment where the High Court has dealt with the issue:
19. Before concluding, the Court deems it necessary to take serious view on the conduct of the Respondent No. 1 - Defendant No. 1, who either for an extraneous consideration, or to save his skin, has taken contradictory stands in the judicial proceedings by filing one written statement at Exh. 20 supporting the case of the present Appellant - Plaintiff and subsequently by filing the application at Exh. 43, and other documents in the nature of affidavits supporting the case of the Respondents No. 3 to 5. It appears that the Respondent No. 1 has tried to change his version after the impugned order was passed by the trial Court, just to suit his purpose, misusing and abusing the process of law. The Court is constrained to observe that due to sky-rocketing escalation in the prices of the lands in and around the urban areas, the execution of such illegal agreements at the instance of the owners/power-of-attorney holders/banakhat holders has become rampant, and that more often than not, the proceedings of Courts are being misused and abused to a large extent by such unscrupulous elements. In many cases, innocent persons are being cheated and defrauded by such elements, in the quest of earning easy money, dragging such innocent persons to litigations which go on for years together.
20. In the instant case also, the Respondent No. 1 - Defendant No. 1 after requesting the trial Court to reopen his right to file written statement, and after filing written ........