Daulat Ram vs. M/s HP Commercial Corporation Cr. Revision No. 282 of 2024 Reserved on 04.12.2025. 01.01.2026 Present: Mr Anuj Gupta, Advocate, for the applicant/complainant. Mr Anil Manget, Advocate, for the non- applicant/accused. Cr.M.P. No. 887 of 2025 The present application has been filed for taking action against the non-applicant/accused for making a false statement before the Court. It has been asserted that the non-applicant/accused paid an amount of ₹5,00,000/- to the complainant. He made a statement in the Court that he had deposited ₹1,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat. The accused stated before the Lok Adalat that the complainant was entitled to get ₹1,00,000/- deposited by him before the learned Trial Court. The complainant agreed to compound the offence, and the accused was acquitted. The complainant filed an application for the release of the amount before the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court called for the report of the office, and it was reported that only an amount of ₹75,000/- was deposited by the non-applicant. The non-applicant made a false statement before this Court that he had deposited ₹1,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court and obtained the consent of the complainant to compound the offence on the basis of a false statement. Hence, it was prayed that the present application be allowed and action be taken against the accused. 2. The application is opposed by filing a reply asserting that the accused had handed over an amount of ₹1,00,000/- in cash to his earlier Advocate on 04.10.2024 with clear instructions to deposit it before the learned Trial Court. The accused is a layperson, and he relied upon his Advocate to deposit the amount. His advocate told him that the entire amount was deposited before the Court. The complainant came to know after verification from the learned Trial Court that only ₹75,000/- had been deposited by the Advocate, and the remaining amount of ₹25,000/- was not deposited. The lapse was on the part of the Advocate, and the complainant was ready to deposit ₹25000/- before the learned Trial Court as per the direction of the Court. The statement was made under the bona fide belief that the entire amount had been deposited. No false statement was made, and the statement was bona fide. Therefore, it was prayed that the present application be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 4. The record shows that the accused made a statement before this Court on 21.06.2024 that he had deposited ₹1,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court, and he had no objection in case the amount is ordered to be released to the complainant as per the compromise. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat, and the accused was acquitted because of the compromise between the parties. 5. It is undisputed that the accused had not deposited ₹1,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court and had only deposited ₹75,000/- before the learned Trial Court. This fact was asserted in the reply to the application. 6. The accused made a specific statement on oath that he had deposited ₹1,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court. He never claimed that he had handed over ₹1,00,000/- to his Advocate, who had deposited it before the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the explanation provided by the accused before the Court that he had handed over ₹1,00,000/- to his Advocate, who had only deposited ₹75,000/- and not ₹1,00,000/-, is an afterthought and cannot be believed. Further, the non- applicant never complained to the bar council about the misconduct of the advocate, which would make his testimony suspect. 7. The accused made a specific statement before the Court that he had deposited ₹1,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court. He should have verified the correctness of this statement before making it on oath. He could have easily explained that the amount was handed over to the Advocate, and he was not sure whether the amount was deposited by the Advocate before the learned Trial Court or not. He chose to make a statement that he had deposited ₹1,00,000/-, which statement, according to his subsequent affidavit, is incorrect because, as per the accused, he never deposited any money but only handed over the money to his Advocate. 8. The complainant was led to a compromise of the matter based on the statement made by the accused that he had deposited ₹1,00,000/- before the learned Trial Court. The grievance of the complainant that he would not have compounded the offence had he known about the deposit of ₹75,000/- before the learned Trial Court is justified. Thus, the accused obtained an advantage by making a false statement before the Court. 9. The accused made a statement knowing that it was incorrect. The statement was made to mislead the complainant to compound the offence. The statement also mislead the Court, which referred the matter to the Lok Adalat, based on the statement made by the non-applicant. The tendency of the litigants to seek an advantage by resorting to falsehood is on the increase, and if the same is not curbed at this stage, the whole administration of justice, which is based upon the trust that the statements on oath are being made correctly, will crumble. This will ultimately shake the foundation of the rule of law upon which the whole society is built. 10. Therefore, the act of the accused cannot be condoned, and it is a fit case where the accused is to be prosecuted for making a false statement before the Court. Hence, the present application is allowed, and the Registrar General of this Court is directed to make a complaint to the Magistrate having jurisdiction over the matter. The accused is directed to furnish personal and surety bonds in the sum of ₹25,000/- to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Registrar (Judicial) within a period of two weeks, undertaking to appear before the learned Magistrate on each and every date of hearing, failing which the learned Magistrate shall be free to take him in custody and proceed as per the law. 11. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present application, and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 1st January, 2026 (Nikita)