1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 18 th OF MARCH, 2024
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 8667 of 2024

BETWEEN:-
1. DIVYA CHOUDHARY THROUGH MANJRI
CHOUDHARY WIDE POWER OF ATTORNEY
DATED 03/07/2023 BEARING REGISTERED NO. MP
179152023A42076187 D/O VIJAY KUMAR
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 905 -906
INDRADARSHAN BUILDING 19 NEAR MILLAT
NAGAR NEW LINK ANDHERI WEST MUMBAI
MAHARASTRA (MAHARASHTRA)

2. BHAVYA CHOUDHARY THROUGH MANJRI

CHOUDHARY WIDE POWER OF ATTORNEY
DATED 03/07/2023 BEARING REGISTERED NO. MP
179152023A42076187 D/O VIJAY KUMAR
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 905-906 INDRADARSHAN
BUILDING 19, NEAR MILLAT NAGAR, NEW LINK
ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA)

.....APPLICANTS
(SHRI KARTIK RAGHUWANSHI, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARS
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ALONG WITH SHRI CHETAN
PATHAK, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANTS)

AND
1. MADHURI CHOUDHARY W/O SANJAY KUMAR
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS 8TH FLOOR, BRILLIANT
PLATINA SCHEME NO78 PART II VIJAY NAGAR
INDORE, ALSO AT E-13, SAKET NAGAR, INDORE
(MADHYA PRADESH)

2. DHRUV CHOUDHARY S/O SANJAY KUMAR

CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 8TH FLOOR
BRILLIANT PLATINA SCHEME NO. 78 PART II
VIJAY NAGAR INDORE ALSO AT E-13, SAKET
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 18-03-2024
17:51:17
 2
3. DEVIKA CHOUDHARY D/O SANJAY KUMAR
CHOUDHARY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: BUSINESS R/O 8TH FLOOR
BRILLIANT PLATINA SCHEME NO. 78 PART II
VIJAY NAGAR INDORE ALSO AT E-13, SAKET
NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDE3NTS)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 against the respondents for making false claims before this

Court in Writ Petition no.27563/2021 making following prayer:-

"i. Issue a writ, direction or order calling for the records of
the petitioner's case from the office of respondents.
ii. Issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of
CERTIORARI/MANDAMUS or other appropriate writ,
quashing the impugned orders dated 18/10/2021 and
25/10/2021.
iii. To issue directions to respondent No.1-3 to maintain the
demarcation as rightly held by respondent NO.4.
iv. To issue directions to respondent No.3 to first ascertain
the rightful share of all concerned parties, by first
expeditiously adjudicating the Revenue Appeal
No.0027/21-22 pending before it.
v. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of
Mandamus or other appropriate writ, restraining the
respondent from transferring/alternating any part of the
subject land or plots developed thereon during the
pendency of the present petition.
vi. To allow the costs of the petition and
vii. Grant such other reliefs or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court
deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. A reply was submitted by the respondents on 14.02.2022 denying the

averments and claims of the petitioners. The applicant/writ petitioner has
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 18-03-2024
17:51:17
 3
withdrawn the said petition on 26.07.2022. The order reads as under:-
"Counsel for petitioner makes oral prayer for withdrawal of
the petition.
The prayer is opposed by learned counsel for respondents No.
6 to 8 on the ground that the writ petition was filed with
suppression of facts and was the result of abuse of process.
However, considering the oral prayer of the petitioner, the
petition is permitted to be withdrawn.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, liberty is
granted to respondent No.6 to 8 to constitute separate
proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law."

3. Counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents have filed
misrepresented and mentioned false facts in the reply before this Court which
compelled the applicants to withdraw the said petition.
4. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the reply was filed on
14.02.2022 and the Writ Petition was withdrawn after more than 5 months on
26.07.2022. The applicants had sufficient time to examine the facts and
averments made in the reply and had an opportunity to controvert the same by
filing rejoinder. The petitioner did not file any rejoinder in the Writ Petition and
himself has withdrawn the writ petition after more than 5 months of the reply.
The contention that in the reply false facts were mentioned which amounts to
offence under Section 340 Cr.P.C. cannot be accepted specially when after the
reply the writ petition itself was withdrawn after more than 5 months of the
reply.

5. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out for interference. The

petition is dismissed.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)

JUDGE
soumya
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 18-03-2024
17:51:17
 4

Signature Not Verified

Signed by: SOUMYA
RANJAN DALAI
Signing time: 18-03-2024
17:51:17