Brief Facts of Case:
1. In civil suit for recovery of damage Defendant "A" filed Written Statement along with supporting Affidavit. The suit was dismissed as non maintainable and decree was prepared on the objections and statements given by the Defendant "A". After the suit was dismissed, it was found that the supporting affidavit was sworn before the Oath Comissioner but there were no traces of signatures of Defendant "A" on the register maintained by Oath Comissioner appointed by Delhi High Court. The signatures present were that of the Advocate who represented the Defendant "A" and also identified the Defendant "A" in the civil suit. I received the certified copy from the Oath Comissioner through RTI.
2. In another ongoing Civil Suit against same Defendant "A", he filed WS along with supporting affidavit. On checking the details with Oath Comissioner , no signatures of Defendant "A" was found on Oath Commissioner register.
In summary : The representating Advocate on behalf Defendant got the Affidatives attested by the Oath Comisioner and same was done by the Oath Comissioner without seeking the presence of Defendant "A".
My Questions:
1. Can the Written Statement be rejected in Civil Court as it is supported by Affidavit is not properly sworn before Oath Comissioner. If yes under what provisions /Order / Rule
2. Can Application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. r/w s.195 , S. 191,192,193 be filed before trial court. Any limitations to that ?
3. Can any third Party not related to suit, file FIR agasint Representing Advocate, Defendant, Oath Commissioner for corrupt practices, impersonation, Forgery, Using Oath Commissioner Seal etc without following direction of High Court Oath Comissioner Rules for benefit of large public to ensure and spread wide mesage
Please note that any person can file complaint with MM or Police
Refer: Vishwa Mitter vs O. P. Poddar And Others 1984 AIR, 5 1984 SCR (1) 176
HELD: Anyone can set the criminal law in motion by filing a complaint of facts constituting an offence before a Magistrate entitled to take cognizance under s. 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and unless any statutory provision prescribes any special qualification or eligibility criteria for putting the criminal law in motion, no court can decline to take cognizance on the sole ground that the complainant was not competent to file the complaint. Section 190 of the Code clearly indicates that the qualification of the complainant to file a complaint is not relevant.
(b) Section 4, Cr. P.C. provides for trial of offences under the Penal Code and other laws. Sub-s. (1) of s. 4 deals with offences under the Penal Code. Sub-s. (2) of s. 4 provides that all offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences. From a combined reading of s. 4(2) with s. 190, it transpires that upon a complaint being filed by a person, setting-out facts therein which constitute the offence, before a Magistrate specified in s. 190, the Magistrate will be competent to take cognizance of the offence irrespective of the qualifications or eligibility of the complainant
