Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs The State on 18 November, 2010, DELHI HC

You are currently viewing Sanjeev Kumar Mittal vs The State on 18 November, 2010, DELHI HC

11.5 . If the facts are sufficient to return a finding that an offence appears to have been committed and it is expedient in the interests of justice to proceed to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court need not order a preliminary inquiry. But if they are not and there is suspicion, albeit a strong one, the Court may order a preliminary inquiry. For that purpose, it can direct the State agency to investigate and file a report along with such other evidence that they are able to gather.

11.6. Ordering of the preliminary inquiry also includes investigation by a State agency where the nature is such that a private party in civil proceedings could not possibly gather and place before the Court those facts, documents, etc. Many times, there can be suspicion, strong suspicion, or even suspicion that borders on conviction, and it is expedient in the interests of justice to proceed to lodge a complaint, but there may be no sufficient legal evidence on the record at that time to so proceed.

11.7. This is not a case where it is mere forgery of the Will and ought to be disposed of on a report by the expert evidence of the document examiner. In order to reach to the others involved and unearth more evidence, this Court deems it necessary to order investigation by the police as a part of preliminary inquiry.

When there are prima facie material of perjury and forgery and some more material is required which the applicant is not able to collect and produce then the court can take the help of police , CBI or any machinery to conduct the investigation and collect the evidence or material . Moreover court can constitute committee of expert with CBI officers

Leave a Reply