# Bhartendu Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 231
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 743 of 2025
- **Bench:** Om Prakash Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bhartendu-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52972
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 195(1)(b) & 340 - Scope
and
threshold
for
initiating
perjury
proceedings - Application for prosecution
of senior government officers for alleged
falsehood in questionnaires under General
Rules (Criminal), 1977 - Held, mere
assertion that document was false and
might
be
used
before
disciplinary/vigilance
authorities
not
sufficient
-
No
evidence
of
actual
production or use in judicial proceedings
- Principles reiterated from Iqbal Singh
Marwah
and
James
Kunjwal
-
Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC must
be exceptional and based on deliberate
falsehood
affecting
administration
of
justice - Application dismissed. (Paras 7,
10, 11, 12 and 13)

HELD:
In the aforesaid context, it may be mentioned
herein that Section 190 CrPC provides that a
Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence, (b) upon a police report
of such facts, and (c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer, or
upon his own knowledge, that such offence has
been committed. Section 195 CrPC is a sort of
exception to this general provision and creates
an embargo upon the power of the Court to
take cognizance of certain types of offences
enumerated therein. (Para 10)

. It is clear from the language used in Section
340 CrPC that the Court is not bound to make a
complaint regarding commission of an offence
referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., as the
section is conditioned by the words "when such
offence is alleged to have been committed in, or
in relation to, any proceedings in any Court".
Further, Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. deals with two
distinct categories of offence, which are
described
in
clauses
(b)(i)
and
(b)(ii)
respectively. Clause (b)(i) refers to offences in
Chapter XI of IPC which is headed as 'Of False
Evidence And Offences Against Public Justice'.
The offences mentioned in this clause relates to
giving or fabricating false evidence or making a
false declaration in any judicial proceeding or
before a Court of justice or before a public
servant who is bound or authorized by law to
receive such declaration, and also to some other
offences which have a direct co-relation with the
proceedings in a Court of justice (Sections 205
and 211 IPC). The scheme of both these two
provisions or clauses of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is
that the offence should be such which has direct
bearing or affects the functioning or discharge
of lawful duties of a public servant or has a
direct correlation with the proceedings in a
Court of justice. Further, the expression "when
such offence is alleged to have been committed
in respect of a document produced or given in
evidence in a proceeding in a Court" occurring
in
clause
(b)(ii)
should
normally
mean
commission of such an offence after the
document has actually been produced or given
in evidence in the Court Thus, clause (b)(ii)
contemplates a situation where the offences
enumerated therein are c

## Text

1 All. Bhartendu Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
231
particularly when the order is subject to further
challenge before a higher forum. [Vide Raj
Kishore Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. AIR 2003
SC 4664; Vishnu Dev Sharma Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 172; Steel
Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Sales Tax Officer,
Rourkela I Circle & Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 407;
State of Uttaranchal & Anr. Vs. Sunil Kumar
Singh Negi AIR 2008 SC 2026; U.P.S.R.T.C.
Vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta AIR 2009 SC 2328;
Ram Phal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (2009)
3 SCC 258; Mohammed Yusuf Vs. Faij
Mohammad & Ors. (2009) 3 SCC 513; and
State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sada Ram &
Anr. (2009) 4 SCC 422].

33.Thus, it is evident that the
recording of reasons is principle of natural
justice and every judicial order must be
supported by reasons recorded in writing. It
ensures transparency and fairness in decision
making. The person who is adversely affected
may know, as why his application has been
rejected."

33. Non recording of reasons, non
consideration of admissible evidence or
consideration of inadmissible evidence renders
the order to be unsustainable. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd.
Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi ,
2011(269)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.), held as under :

"8. ....It needs to be emphasised that
every litigant, who approaches the court for
relief is entitled to know the reason for
acceptance or rejection of his prayer,
particularly when either of the parties to the lis
has a right of further appeal. Unless the litigant
is made aware of the reasons which weighed
with the court in denying him the relief prayed
for, the remedy of appeal will not be
meaningful. It is that reasoning, which can be
subjected to examination at the higher forums.
In State of Orissa Vs. Dhaniram Luhar2 this
Court, while reiterating that reason is the heart
beat of every conclusion and without the same,
it becomes lifeless, observed thus :

"8.......Right
to
reason
is
an
indispensable part of a sound judicial system;
reasons at least sufficient to indicate an
application of mind to the matter before court.
Another rationale is that the affected party can
know why the decision has gone against him.
One of the salutary requirements of natural
justice is spelling out reasons for the order
made;......."

34. Considering the facts and the reasons
indicated in paragraph(s) 17 and 18 ,
respectively, of this judgment as also the law
related to Section 420 IPC and principle settled
on the issue of recording of reasons in the order,
this Court is of the view that the present
application is liable to be allowed. Accordingly,
allowed. The order dated 15.03.2023 passed by
the Magistrate and the order dated 23.11.2024
passed by the Revisional Court, are hereby set
aside.

35. The matter is remanded back to the
Magistrate, who shall consider and decide the
application of the applicant seeking discharge a
fresh.
---------
(2025) 1 ILRA 231
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 743 of 2025

Bhartendu Pratap Singh ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shivendra S. Singh Rathore, Krishna Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Sections 195(1)(b) & 340 - Scope
and
threshold
for
initiating
perjury
proceedings - Application for prosecution
of senior government officers for alleged
falsehood in questionnaires under General
Rules (Criminal), 1977 - Held, mere
assertion that document was false and
might
be
used
before
disciplinary/vigilance
authorities
not
sufficient
-
No
evidence
of
actual
production or use in judicial proceedings
- Principles reiterated from Iqbal Singh
Marwah
and
James
Kunjwal
-
Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC must
be exceptional and based on deliberate
falsehood
affecting
administration
of
justice - Application dismissed. (Paras 7,
10, 11, 12 and 13)

HELD:
In the aforesaid context, it may be mentioned
herein that Section 190 CrPC provides that a
Magistrate may take cognizance of any offence
(a) upon receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence, (b) upon a police report
of such facts, and (c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer, or
upon his own knowledge, that such offence has
been committed. Section 195 CrPC is a sort of
exception to this general provision and creates
an embargo upon the power of the Court to
take cognizance of certain types of offences
enumerated therein. (Para 10)

. It is clear from the language used in Section
340 CrPC that the Court is not bound to make a
complaint regarding commission of an offence
referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., as the
section is conditioned by the words "when such
offence is alleged to have been committed in, or
in relation to, any proceedings in any Court".
Further, Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. deals with two
distinct categories of offence, which are
described
in
clauses
(b)(i)
and
(b)(ii)
respectively. Clause (b)(i) refers to offences in
Chapter XI of IPC which is headed as 'Of False
Evidence And Offences Against Public Justice'.
The offences mentioned in this clause relates to
giving or fabricating false evidence or making a
false declaration in any judicial proceeding or
before a Court of justice or before a public
servant who is bound or authorized by law to
receive such declaration, and also to some other
offences which have a direct co-relation with the
proceedings in a Court of justice (Sections 205
and 211 IPC). The scheme of both these two
provisions or clauses of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is
that the offence should be such which has direct
bearing or affects the functioning or discharge
of lawful duties of a public servant or has a
direct correlation with the proceedings in a
Court of justice. Further, the expression "when
such offence is alleged to have been committed
in respect of a document produced or given in
evidence in a proceeding in a Court" occurring
in
clause
(b)(ii)
should
normally
mean
commission of such an offence after the
document has actually been produced or given
in evidence in the Court Thus, clause (b)(ii)
contemplates a situation where the offences
enumerated therein are committed with respect
to a document subsequent to its production or
giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.
(Para 11)

However, it is relevant to mention herein that
Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., is conditioned by
the words "when such offence is alleged to have
been committed in, or in relation to, any
proceedings in any Court", which indicates that
such a course will be adopted only if the offence
of Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211
and 228 IPC have been committed in (a) any
proceedings in Court or (b) in relation to the
said proceedings in Court. learned Counsel for
the applicant has failed to satisfy this Court as
to how the asking of the alleged questionnaire is
an offence under any of these sections and as
to how the said questionnaire has been used in
the proceedings before the learned CJM or in
relation to the said proceedings before the
learned CJM, Lucknow. Although, the centrifugal
argument of the learned counsel for the
applicant is that these questionnaire have a
legal significance and can be used as an
evidence before any Court or authority, however
as can be seen from the order passed by the
learned CJM, Lucknow as well as the learned
1 All. Bhartendu Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
233
Sessions Judge, Lucknow, there is not a single
document on record to show as to when and in
what
manner
these
questionaries'
were
produced before any Court or any authority, so
as to trigger the penal provisions of Section 340
of the Criminal Procedure Code.. (Para 12)

No doubt, before filing of the complaint, the
Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record
a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the
interest of justice that enquiry should be made
into any of the offences referred to in Section
195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.. However, the said stage would
come only when the Court finds that the nature
of complaint meets the minimum threshold,
which would normally be judged by the Court by
weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered
by the person affected by such false or forged
document, but having regard to the effect or
impact of such commission of offence, which it
may have upon the administration of justice. It
is possible that such false document or forgery
may cause a very serious or substantial injury to
a person in the sense that it may deprive him of
a very valuable property or status or the like,
but such document may be just a piece of
evidence produced or given in evidence in
Court, where voluminous evidence may have
been adduced and the effect of such piece of
evidence on the broad concept of administration
of
justice
may
be
minimal.
In
such
circumstances, the Court may not consider it
expedient in the interest of justice to make a
complaint. It has to understand that the offence
should be such which has direct bearing or
affects the functioning or discharge of lawful
duties of a Court of law or has a direct
correlation with the proceedings in a Court of
justice. This Court fails to appreciate as to how
the alleged falsity of the said questionnaire
could in any manner affect the functioning or
discharge of lawful duties of the Court or in
administration of justice or the other party has
perjured themselves to beneficial orders from
the Court. Further, no case has been made out
as to how the same would be expedient in the
interest of justice as contemplated under the
provisions of Section 340 of the Criminal
Procedure Code. (Para 13)

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:
1. Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs Meenakshi Marwah,
(2005) 4 SCC 370

2. James Kunjwal Vs St. of Uttarakhand, (2024)
8 SCR 332

3. Pritish Vs St. of Mah., (2002) 1 SCC 253

4. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Vs U.O.I., 1992 CRLJ
3752 (Bom.)

5. M.S. Jaggi Vs Registrar, High Court of Orissa,
1983 CRLJ 1527

(Delivered by Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shivendra S Singh
Rathore, learned Counsel for the applicant,
learned A.G.A. for the for the Staterespondents and perused the material
placed on record.

2. The present application has been
filed praying for setting-aside the final
judgment/order dated 03.10.2024 passed by
the learned Addl. District & Sessions
Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No.
66/2023 ( Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s
Rajeev Krishna & 2 others) filed under
section 341 of the Cr. P.C by the applicant
as well as the order dated 16.03.2023
passed by the learned CJM, Lucknow in
Crl. Misc. Case No.1041/2023 (Bhartendu
Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev Krishna & 2
others) filed under section 340 of the Cr.
P.C by the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
has submitted that the opposite party Nos.2
and 3 prepared questionnaires under
General
Rules
(Criminal),
1977
for
declaration of a fact was false and they
knew that the said questionaires were false
on the date when the same was obtained
under the seal and signature of the
concerned Court. According to him, the
learned CJM, Lucknow, while exercising
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction under section 340 Cr.P.C has
committed material irregularity in forming
opinion
contrary
to
the
admissible
documentary proof of the offence under
section 191 and section 192 of the Indian
Penal Code, which paves foundation for the
offence under section 196 and 199 of the
IPC. According to the learned counsel for
the applicant, the gravity of the offence is
such that new modus operandi has been
invented by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3
to misuse a legal instrument to cater to their
quests for personal gains which evidently
has become so intense that the opposite
parties, who are involved in litigation and
are senior Government servants, did not
hesitate to take shelter of falsehood.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant
further submits that such an act is not only
a prescribed offence but a serious fraud has
been played upon the Court and the learned
trial Court despite having the documentary
evidence has not only committed grave
irregularity in not proceeding any further
but has also in improper exercise of its
jurisdiction
has
not
conducted
the
preliminary enquiry as envisaged under
section 2(g) of the Cr.P.C. He further
submits that the opposite parties committed
such offence with the intention and design
to misuse the questionnaires in the
proceedings
under
law/before
public
servants
particularly
their
competent
Disciplinary/Vigilance Authorities of the
Government and as such the questionnaires
were receivable as evidence, whereas the
same were totally false. In the written
submission filed after the completion of
arguments, the learned Counsel for the
applicant has also relied on the judgment of
(i) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. v/s
The UOI, 1992 CRLJ 3752(Bom.), (ii)
M.S Jaggi V/s Registrar, High Court of
Orissa &Anr. (1983) CRLJ 1527 and (iii)
Pritish V/s State of Maharashtra &Ors.
2002(1) SCC 253.

5. Per contra, the learned AGA for the
State-opposite party No.1 has vehemently
opposed the petition and have submitted
that the facts of the case do not trigger the
minimum
threshold
required
for
maintaining an application under section
340 Cr. P.C and both the learned CJM and
the learned Sessions Court have rightly
dismissed the application & appeal of the
applicant by giving a valid and cogent
reasoning. Learned A.G.A has stated that
the impugned orders does not call for any
interference by this Court and the present
application may be dismissed. The learned
A.G.A. also relied on the Constitutional
Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah
V/s Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC
370.

6. Having regard to the submissions
advanced by learned Counsel for the parties
and going through record, this Court before
embarking on the path of deciding the
present application may mention that the
learned counsel for the applicant has tried
to distinguish the Constitutional Bench
Judgment of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra)
case
by
submitting
in
his
written
submission that the same is applicable only
for section 195(1)(b)(ii) for the crimes
under Sections 463, 471, 475 or 476 of
IPC, whereas the present case allegedly
relates to offences u/s 193, 196,199 and
200 of IPC, which were covered under
section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C.

7. Recently, a larger bench of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of James
Kunjwal Vs State of Uttrakhand & Anr.,
(2024)8 SCR 332, after tracing the various
precedents
relevant
to
the
context,
1 All. Bhartendu Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
235
contemplated a guideline for the Courts for
initiation of an action of perjury under
section 340 Cr.P.C in the following words:-

"16. What we may conclude from
a perusal of the above-noticed judicial
pronouncements is that:-

(i) The Court should be of the
prima facie opinion that there exists
sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate
proceedings against the person who has
allegedly made a false statement(s);

(ii) Such proceedings should be
initiated when doing the same is "expedient
in the interests of justice to punish the
delinquent" and not merely because of
inaccuracy in statements that may be
innocent/immaterial;

(iii) There should be "deliberate
falsehood on a matter of substance";

(iv) The Court should be satisfied
that there is a reasonable foundation for
the charge, with distinct evidence and not
mere suspicion;

(v)
Proceedings
should
be
initiated in exceptional circumstances, for
instance, when a party has perjured
themselves to beneficial orders from the
Court."

8. Keeping in mind the aforesaid
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and giving a thoughtful consideration to the
contention of the learned counsel for the
applicant and learned A.G.A. and the
documents on records, this Court finds that
the background of the present case lie in a
narrow compass. It is available from
records of the present case that the
applicant had on an earlier occasion, filed a
Complaint Case No. 135/2016 before the
learned CJM, Lucknow, which came to be
dismissed vide order dated 02.12.2016
under Section 203 of
the
Criminal
Procedure Code. The said order came to be
challenged by the applicant before the
Sessions Court by means of Criminal
Revision No. 105/2017, which came to be
allowed on 25.06.2019 and the order dated
02.12.2016 of the learned CJM, Lucknow
came to be set-aside, in the presence of the
opposite party Nos.2 and 3, as they were
also a party in the said Revision petition.

9. It is the case of the applicant that
the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 procured
three questionnaires dated 01.04.2022 in
which dominant being "Whether aforesaid
Complaint Case No. 135/2016 has been
dismissed under section 203 Cr.P.C on
dated 2.12.2016." under Rule 141 of the
General Rules (Criminal) 1977 of the
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,
which
according to them, could not had been
procured, as the opposite party Nos.2 and 3
very well aware on that date that the
Complaint Case No. 135/2016 had been
restored by the learned Sessions Court
order and, as such, according to him, the
said conduct of the opposite party Nos.2
and 3 amount to commission of an offence
in relation to pending proceedings before a
Court of law and, therefore, an enquiry
under Section 340 Cr.P.C read with section
195(1)(b) Cr.P.C was to be initiated against
the opposite party Nos.2 and 3.

10. In the aforesaid context, it may be
mentioned herein that Section 190 CrPC
provides that a Magistrate may take
cognizance of any offence (a) upon
receiving a complaint of facts which
constitute such offence, (b) upon a police
report of such facts, and (c) upon
information received from any person other
than a police officer, or upon his own
knowledge, that such offence has been
committed. Section 195 CrPC is a sort of
exception to this general provision and
creates an embargo upon the power of the
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court to take cognizance of certain types of
offences
enumerated
therein.
The
procedure for filing a complaint by the
Court as contemplated by Section 195(1)
CrPC is given in Section 340 CrPC, which
reads as hereinunder:-

"340.
Procedure
in
cases
mentioned in Section 195.

(1) When upon an application
made to it in this behalf or otherwise any
Court is of opinion that it is expedient in
the interest of justice that an inquiry should
be made into any offence referred to in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195,
which appears to have been committed in
or in relation to a proceeding in that Court
or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court may,
after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it
thinks necessary, (a)record a finding to that
effect; (b)make a complaint thereof in
writing; (c)send it to a Magistrate of the
first class having jurisdiction; (d)take
sufficient security for the appearance of the
accused before such Magistrate, or if the
alleged offence is non-bailable and the
Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the
accused in custody to such magistrate; and
(e)bind over any person to appear and give
evidence before such Magistrate

(2) The power conferred on a
Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an
offence may, in any case where that Court
has neither made a complaint under subsection (1) in respect of that offence nor
rejected an application for the making of
such complaint, be exercised by the Court
to which such former Court is subordinate
within the meaning of sub-section (4) of
Section 195.

(3)A complaint made under this
section shall be signed, -(a)where the Court
making the complaint is a High Court, by
such officer of the Court as the Court may
appoint, (b)in any other case, by the
presiding officer of the Court[or by such
officer of the Court as the Court may
authorise in writing in this behalf.]

(4)In this section, "Court" has the
same meaning as in Section 195."

11. It is clear from the language used
in Section 340 CrPC that the Court is not
bound to make a complaint regarding
commission of an offence referred to in
Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., as the section is
conditioned by the words "when such
offence is alleged to have been committed
in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any
Court". Further, Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
deals with two distinct categories of
offence, which are described in clauses
(b)(i) and (b)(ii) respectively. Clause (b)(i)
refers to offences in Chapter XI of IPC
which is headed as 'Of False Evidence And
Offences Against Public Justice'. The
offences mentioned in this clause relates to
giving or fabricating false evidence or
making a false declaration in any judicial
proceeding or before a Court of justice or
before a public servant who is bound or
authorized
by
law
to
receive
such
declaration, and also to some other offences
which have a direct co-relation with the
proceedings in a Court of justice (Sections
205 and 211 IPC). The scheme of both
these two provisions or clauses of Section
195 Cr.P.C. is that the offence should be
such which has direct bearing or affects the
functioning or discharge of lawful duties of
a public servant or has a direct correlation
with the proceedings in a Court of justice.
Further, the expression "when such offence
is alleged to have been committed in
respect of a document produced or given in
evidence in a proceeding in a Court"
occurring in clause (b)(ii) should normally
mean commission of such an offence after
1 All. Bhartendu Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
237
the document has actually been produced
or given in evidence in the Court. Thus,
clause (b)(ii) contemplates a situation
where the offences enumerated therein are
committed with respect to a document
subsequent to its production or giving in
evidence in a proceeding in any Court (see
Iqbal Singh Marwah V/s Meenakshi
Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370).

12. However, it is relevant to mention
herein that Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C., is
conditioned by the words "when such
offence is alleged to have been committed
in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any
Court", which indicates that such a course
will be adopted only if the offence of
Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211
and 228 IPC have been committed in (a)
any proceedings in Court or (b) in relation
to the said proceedings in Court. learned
Counsel for the applicant has failed to
satisfy this Court as to how the asking of
the alleged questionnaire is an offence
under any of these sections and as to how
the said questionnaire has been used in the
proceedings before the learned CJM or in
relation to the said proceedings before the
learned CJM, Lucknow. Although, the
centrifugal argument of the learned counsel
for the applicant is that these questionnaire
have a legal significance and can be used as
an evidence before any Court or authority,
however as can be seen from the order
passed by the learned CJM, Lucknow as
well as the learned Sessions Judge,
Lucknow, there is not a single document on
record to show as to when and in what
manner these questionaries' were produced
before any Court or any authority, so as to
trigger the penal provisions of Section 340
of the Criminal Procedure Code.

13. No doubt, before filing of the
complaint,
the
Court
may
hold
a
preliminary enquiry and record a finding to
the effect that it is expedient in the interest
of justice that enquiry should be made into
any of the offences referred to in Section
195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.. However, the said stage
would come only when the Court finds that
the nature of complaint meets the minimum
threshold, which would normally be judged
by the Court by weighing not the
magnitude of injury suffered by the person
affected by such false or forged document,
but having regard to the effect or impact of
such commission of offence, which it may
have upon the administration of justice. It
is possible that such false document or
forgery may cause a very serious or
substantial injury to a person in the sense
that it may deprive him of a very valuable
property or status or the like, but such
document may be just a piece of evidence
produced or given in evidence in Court,
where voluminous evidence may have been
adduced and the effect of such piece of
evidence
on
the
broad
concept
of
administration of justice may be minimal.
In such circumstances, the Court may not
consider it expedient in the interest of
justice to make a complaint. It has to
understand that the offence should be such
which has direct bearing or affects the
functioning or discharge of lawful duties of
a Court of law or has a direct correlation
with the proceedings in a Court of justice.
This Court fails to appreciate as to how the
alleged falsity of the said questionnaire
could in any manner affect the functioning
or discharge of lawful duties of the Court
or in administration of justice or the other
party has perjured themselves to beneficial
orders from the Court. Further, no case has
been made out as to how the same would
be expedient in the interest of justice as
contemplated under the provisions of
Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. For all the aforesaid reasons, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the
order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the
learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge,
Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 66/2023
(Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev
Krishna & 2 others) and order dated
16.03.2023 passed by the learned CJM,
Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No.1041/2023
(Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev
Krishna & 2 others). Both the trial Courts
have considered all the contentions as well
as the Judgments referred by the applicant
and has on due appreciation of the facts of
the present case has rightly rejected the
application under Section 340 of the Cr.
P.C.

15. As a sequel to above, the
application lacks merits and is hereby
dismissed.
---------
(2025) 1 ILRA 238
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 885 of 2013

Sanjay Gaur Advocate & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
The State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
R.N.S. Chauhan, Bajhul Quamar Siddiqui,
Sushil Kumar Singh, Sushil Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Govt. Advcocate, Munni Lal Yadav, Pradeep
Kumar Tripathi

(A) Criminal Law - Quashing of criminal
proceedings in civil disputes - The Code of
criminal procedure, 1973 - Section 482 -
Inherent power - Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 - When
a dispute is essentially of a civil nature,
criminal
proceedings
should
not
be
permitted to continue, especially where
there is an unexplained delay in filing the
FIR
and
the
allegations
lack
substance.(Para - 9,12)
Controversy between parties revolves around
transfer of title of land - complainant alleged
that accused fraudulently executed a sale deed
by forging signatures - civil suit was already
pending regarding the same property - an ex
parte decree was initially passed but later set
aside - complainant, instead of pursuing civil
remedies, filed a criminal case leading to the
filing of a charge sheet. (Para - 7,8)
HELD:- Dispute between the parties was purely
of civil nature. No offence as alleged by the
complainant was made out. A fit case for
exercise of inherent powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. as the continuation of the criminal
proceedings was nothing but an abuse of the
process of law.(Para - 9,12)

Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Paramjeet Batra Vs St. of Uttarakhand & ors.,
Criminal Appeal No. 2069 of 2012

2. St. of Har. & ors. Vs Ch. Bhajan Lal & ors.,
1991(1) RCR (Criminal) 383 : 1992 Supp (1)
SCC 335

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj, J.)

1. Applicants have approached this
Court through this application under
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure
for quashing of the impugned charge sheet
under
Section
173(2)
Cr.P.C.
dated
24.3.2012,
cognizance
order
dated
30.7.2012 passed by Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate-I, Sitapur and the entire
proceedings of Criminal Case No. 2618 of