Vijay Lata v. Rajiv Arora

Order Date

31.10.2018

07.12.2019

06.03.2020

16.03.2020

17.12.2020

12.01.2021

16.03.2021

16.06.2021

16.08.2021

28.09.2023

31.10.2023

21.11.2023

27.01.2020

31.01.2020 so accompanied by the copies of except in CRM-M-3392-2020 as passed in CRM-M-48956-2018 Court has painstakingly taken petitions filed by the petitioner. ent is reproduced herein under: originally presented "as Criminal o.1986 of 1993", the petitioner has he beginning of the petition) as an riminal Procedure Code", seeking false affidavit in CWP No.1986 of dent, on the ground that the overall has been shown to be poor, in the aid Civil Writ Petition no.1986 of ndent was the Registrar of the n statement having been filed in

e r y e f s n . l s n g f l e f e n

stat had Uni deta bee revi

2.4. was of d be r Kum file gran dism hav Sec Kur ther Cou ord Ben ord

(4) The contention is that it was tement filed', the writ petition was d challenged her discontinuation/ter iversity. At this point of time, it is not ails of that petition, except to the e n dismissed by a Division Benc iew of that order was sought, .1993, after which the petitioner fi s dismissed by the Supreme Court o Thereafter, she filed Civil Suit declaration and a consequential d effect that her services should not reinstated, challenging therein als mar in her place. That civil suit h d against that was withdrawn nted to her to file a fresh civil sui missed, with the appeal filed agai ving been dismissed on 14.5.2002. Thereafter, she instituted a co ction 340 of Cr.P.C. before lea rukshetra, which was dismissed rein that since the alleged perjury urt, the CJM would have no jurisdic She having filed an appeal (C er, it was stated to have been withd Thereafter, she filed "Crimina 07 in CWP No.1986 of 1993," wh nch of this court and was dismiss er reads to say (in the initial part th "The present petition has with a prayer that the r sentenced for filing, will Petition No.1986 of 1993 petitioner was averred a services. It is stated that on account of that 'false written dismissed, by which the petitioner rmination as a Lecturer in the said t considered necessary to give the extent that the said petition having ch of this Court on 19.3.1993, a which again was dismissed on filed SLP No.9303 of 1993, which on 10.8.1993. No.186 of 1994, seeking a decree decree of mandatory injunction, to have been terminated and that she so the appointment of one Naresh having been dismissed, the appeal on 19.12.1997, with permission it. That suit was also subsequently inst that judgment and order also omplaint under the provisions of arned Chief Judicial Magistrate, on 26.5.2007 essentially holding y committed was before the High ction to entertain the complaint. RA-S-1376-SB-2007) against that drawn by her on March 26, 2008. al Miscellaneous No. M-46849 of hich came up before a coordinate sed on September 27, 2010. That hereof) as follows : - been filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. respondents be tried, convicted and lfully a false affidavit in Civil Writ 3 in which poor performance of the as a reason to dispense with her filing of false affidavit amounted to

n r d e g a n h e o e h l n y o f , g h t f e t . d t e r o

(as Kur illeg such Uni foll M-3 Ben on

(5) cheating and defamation f 420, 468, 500 read with Se Thus, though that petition was 93", effectively, it was a complai provisions of Section 340 of the stated in that order) that she had b rukshetra University against a le gally terminated, and in the writ h discontinuation/termination, a w iversity. While dismissing the petition, lows : - "This Court is of the view litigants do not always ta false affidavits indeed a presumed to be false. Th wrong affidavit is an offen maxim that Courts will no of any litigant. When the arrives at a finding that administration of justice h the majesty of law do act wrongly, the litigant is no the affidavit so relied has Hon'ble Apex Court to Thus, this Court cannot co Hence, the present petition Still not satisfied, she thereafte 32437-2010, which again came up nch, with the opening paragraph o

12.7.2011, reading as follows : - "This is petition under Se of Criminal Procedure (in for prosecution of the resp 193, 204, 420, 468 and 50 for charges under Sections 193, 204, ection 34 IPC." shown to be filed "in CWP-1986-int/application/petition filed under Cr.P.C., with her grievance being been recruited as a Lecturer in the eave vacancy, with her services petition filed by her, challenging wrong affidavit was filed by the it was observed by this Court as w that during the course of litigation, ake recourse to the truth. Sometime are submitted. Sometimes they are he offence of purgery or filing of a nce against the Court. It is well settled ot act to satisfy the feeling of revenge conscious of Court is pricked and it t due to filing of wrong affidavit, has failed, then the Court to uphold t. For each and every averment made ot to be taken to task, especially when been taken into consideration by the dismiss the Special Leave Petition. ome to the rescue of the petitioner. n is dismissed." er filed a petition bearing no.CRM-p for hearing before a coordinate f the order passed in that petition, ection 340 read with 482 of the Code n short Cr. P.C.) for granting sanction pondents for offences under Sections 0 read with Section 34 of IPC."

, - r g e s g e s , e e a d e t , d e n e . - e , e n s

bee as n bee dism dism app peti lear Sch alle Uni be a Uni dish noti offe whi in C in t und

(6) Thus, again, jurisdiction unde n invoked by her, with the grievan noticed by the court in that order, ag "Grievance of the petition affidavit in reply to the dismissal of the writ petiti committed the aforesaid o petitioner had filed crimin Chief Judicial Magistrat stands dismissed for wa Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the by way of instant petition. While noticing that earlier CR n dismissed, and that earlier a writ missed, the said petition, i.e. missed. As per the petitioner (on q peal/special leave petition was filed itions. Thereafter still, the petitioner f rned Special Judge appointed u heduled Tribes (Prevention of Atr eging therein that despite the Exec iversity having approved in its me appointed as a Lecturer in the Dep iversity, her services had been honestly, by violating the rules of t ice to her and therefore, since she ence punishable under the said prov That complaint was dismissed ich, again admittedly, (as per the p Court), no appeal has been filed. Thereafter, this petition has be the headnote has been given the der Section 340 of the Criminal Pro er Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. had ce of the petitioner in that petition, gain reproduced as follows : - ner is that respondent No.2 filed false aforesaid writ petition resulting in ion. It is thus alleged that respondents offences by filing false affidavit. The nal complaint No.231 of 2003 before te but the said criminal complaint ant of sanction under Section 340 petitioner has approached this Court " RM-M-46849 of 2007 had already t petition and an SLP also had been CRM-M-32437-2010, was also query to her by this court), no d against the dismissal of those two filed a complaint in the court of the under the Scheduled Castes and rocities) Act, 1989, on 21.3.2017, cutive Council of the Kurukshetra eeting, held on 25.1.1991, that she partment of Psychology in the said n terminated, intentionally and the University, without giving any e belongs to a scheduled caste, an visions had been committed. by that court on 7.8.2018, against petitioner, who is present in person en filed, which as already noticed, nomenclature of an "application ocedure Code".

d , e n s e e t t y n o o o e d , a e d d y n t n , n

pas in dism cou peti

¶8The facts petitioner despite th contention of fact, th of the pre Annexure in the tabu Sr. No. Cas

1. CRM

2. CRM

(7) It is to be first of all noticed sed by the Division Bench in CW the review application on 2.4.19 missing her SLP on 10.8.1993, no urts in different petitions/suits/com itioner, have actually been annexed

s, as recorded above by a Coo r is habitual of filing similar peti he fact that none of the Courts h ns raised by the petitioner, as are he Courts had rather been liberal evious occasions. The operative p es R-1/1 to R-1/6 pertaining to 'i ulated form:

se No. Date of Decision O ' M-M-48956-2018

07.12.2019 N t v a o e M-M-10355-2020

16.03.2020 T w b p C B o w p w p w o s t that in fact other than the orders WP No.1986 of 1993 on 19.3.1993, 993 and by the Supreme Court o other orders passed by different mplaints/applications filed by the d by her with this petition." ordinate Bench, reveal that the itions under Section 340 Cr.P.C. ad earlier found favour with the e being raised now. As a matter l by not imposing costs on most portions of the earlier orders i.e. imposition of costs' are as under Observations pertaining to 'imposition of costs' No costs are being imposed upon the petitioner, simply keeping in view the fact that she has appeared in person and is obviously harassing herself also enough, time and again. The petitioner, on the other hand, would appear to be liable for being penalized for wasting the precious judicial hours of this Court on such a flimsy petition. But, she is let off this time, in view of the fact that, firstly, she is a woman, and secondly, she is presumed to be not well-versed with intricacies of procedural law. She would be well advised to file her next round of litigation only by engaging some competent professional for that purpose, if she so chooses.

s , t t e e . e r t . r o n n s s o

r e s

w a s d e e d g r

3. CRM

4. CRM

5. CRM

6. CRM

¶9Having re cause of a

¶10However, successive precious conduct o Rs.5 lakh about 65

(8) M-M-43025-2020

12.01.2021 I t n w i t P i d f R M-M-12445-2021

16.06.2021 B b d M-M-33445-2021

28.09.2023 K c C i t H d M-M-55152-2023

21.11.2023 K c a m C t S egard to the aforesaid position, action is dismissed being not mai , the petitioner is warned to be e petition/s for the same cause time of Courts already battling of the petitioner would warrant s, but having regard to the fact t years and has been appearing i In view of the discussion above, the present petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed with costs. Costs are being imposed since precious judicial time, during Covid-19 Pandemic, has been wasted on an issue which already stands decided against the petition on four earlier occasions. Costs of Rs.25,000/- be deposited with the 'Haryana Corona Relief Fund'. Besides the present petition has been filed about 28 years after the decision of the writ petition. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any reason to initiate any complaint against the then Registrar of the University. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as, the pleadings and the prayer made in the present petition, this Court does not find it appropriate to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., in the matter. the instant petition on the same intainable. careful in future and not to file of action leading to wastage of g with backlogs. Although the imposition of costs of at least that the petitioner is a lady aged in person necessarily indicating

e d g l n s n f e s e d s o e

s d l r s e r e e f e t d g

that she i without im

28.10.202 Vimal

(9) is not possessed of sufficient m mposing any costs.

(GU

Whether speaking/reaso

means, she is let off this time URVINDER SINGH GILL)

JUDGE ned:

e

IN T Vijay Lat Rajiv Aro CORAM Present: GURVIN 1. Petitioner attempts t has filed that false 1993 by r University 2. The backg 25.01.199 Psycholog Scheduled she along (1) THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ CHANDIGA CR Da a Versus ora & others M: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G Petitioner – Vijay Lata in per Mr. Aarav Gupta, Legal Aid Mr. S.P.Arora, Advocate, for Mr. Amarjit Singh Virk, Adv NDER SINGH GILL, J. r – Vijay Lata, having failed e to establish her allegations of p yet another petition under Secti averments had been made in a respondent No.1 – Rajiv Arora, y, Kurukshetra. ground, in nutshell, is that pursu 91, the petitioner joined as L gy against a 'leave vacancy- d Caste category on 06.02.1991. gwith other similarly situated em JAB AND HARYANA AT ARH RM-M-61377-2023 (O&M) te of Decision: 28.10.2024 ...Petitioner ...Respondents GURVINDER SINGH GILL rson alongwith Counsel. r respondent No.1. vocate, for respondent No.3. arlier in about half of a dozen perjury against the respondents, ion 340 Cr.P.C. alleging therein an affidavit filed in CWP-1986- the then Registrar, Kurukshetra uant to appointment order dated Lecturer in the Department of -temporary post' reserved for . As per the petitioner, although mployees had been approved for n , n - a d f r h r confirmat 02.02.199 of filing C initially g 17.02.199 well as an the record overall pe this Court "… serv to b reso und befo Sin term 3. Although dismissed Supreme 4. The petiti written st against th be taken t (2) tion on 28.08.1992, but her 93. The petitioner had challenge CWP-1986-1993, wherein a Di granted stay in favour of th 93. The Kurukshetra University n application for vacation of stay d of the petitioner was not fou erformance was 'Poor'. The said t on 19.03.1993 while recording ……………Since petitioner's rec vices were terminated whereas othe be satisfactory or good, they wer olution, we find that no decision w der consideration was satisfactory o fore the authorities for consideration University was yet to examine the ce petitioner's performance was fo minated. She had no right to the po order as to costs." the petitioner filed a review d and so was the SLP filed by Court. ioner asserts that the stand of th atement that the record of the p he record and is factually incorre to task for having committed the services were terminated on ed her termination order by way vision Bench of this Court had he petitioner vide order dated y had filed written statement as y, wherein it was mentioned that und to be 'Satisfactory' and her d writ petition was dismissed by the following observations: cord was found to be poor, her er persons whose record was found re confirmed. On perusal of the was taken that record of the persons or good. It was merely a proposal n of the record of such persons and e record of the individual persons. ound to be poor, her services were ost. This writ petition is dismissed. w petition, but the same was y the petitioner in Hon'ble the he Kurukshetra University in its petitioner was 'Poor' was in fact ect and as such, the respondents offence of perjury. n y d d s t r y r d e s l d . e . s e s t s 5. Responde petitioner seeking si the petitio said reply Sr. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 6. The reply judgments Annexure 7. A perusal (Annexur note of th The relev Wri term "ap that perf writ Kur Mar (3) ent No.1 filed its reply, wherein r has not disclosed about all th imilar relief. The particulars of oner seeking similar relief have b y as under: . No. Case No. CRM-M-48956-2018 CRM-M-10355-2020 CRM-M-43025-2020 CRM-M-12445-2021 CRM-M-33445-2021 CRM-M-55152-2023 CRM-M-3392-2020 y filed by respondent No.1 is als s passed in the aforesaid cases e es R-1/1 to R-1/6. l of judgment dated 07.12.2019 re R-1/1) would show that the he previous instances of similar ant extract from the said judgme "By this petition, which was it Petition in Civil Writ Petition No med it in the summary prayer (at th plication under Section 340 of Cr t charges for knowingly filing a fa 93 (be framed) against