# Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1045
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 24945 of 2023
- **Bench:** Gajendra Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50723
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 344 & 482 -
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 -
Quashing of Proceedings for False Evidence -
Applicant, a government teacher and tahrir
writer for an FIR filed by his father, sought to
quash proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C.,
including
the
cognizance
order
dated
12.01.2023 and notice dated 18.05.2023,
arising from a sessions trial where accused
were acquitted. Applicant was alleged to have
given false evidence but contended he was a
formal witness, not present at the incident,
and merely wrote the tahrir as dictated. The
court held that the trial court's order dated
03.11.2022 failed to comply with mandatory
conditions
under
Mahila
Vinod
Kumari,
requiring an express opinion that the witness
intentionally gave false evidence and that
summary punishment was necessary in the
interest of justice. No evidence showed the
applicant willfully provided false St.ments. The
impugned
order
and
proceedings
were
unsustainable for non-compliance with these
conditions, constituting an abuse of process.
Application allowed, proceedings, cognizance
order, and notice quashed. (Paras 6-8)

Application allowed.

List of Cases Cited:

## Text

9 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1045
order of maintenance affects right of a
person drastically and substantially, hence,
it cannot be treated as interlocutory order
and criminal revision should be preferred
under Section 19(4) of the Family Courts
Act against the order passed on the
application for interim maintenance by the
Family Court."

19. Therefore, in view of facts and
circumstances
of
the
case
as
well
judgments discussed hereinabove, present
application is not maintainable coupled
with the fact that Criminal Revision No
3148 of 2023 filed by opposite party No. 2
against
the
very
same
order
dated
03.03.2023, is pending before this Court.

20. Accordingly, application is
dismissed on the ground of maintainability.

21. Office is directed to return the
certified copy of the impugned order to
counsel for applicant after keeping photo
copy of the same on record.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1045
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE GAJENDRA KUMAR, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 24945 of 2023

Ram Kumar ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Satya Prakash Chaturvedi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal
Law
-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Sections 344 & 482 -
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 -
Quashing of Proceedings for False Evidence -
Applicant, a government teacher and tahrir
writer for an FIR filed by his father, sought to
quash proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C.,
including
the
cognizance
order
dated
12.01.2023 and notice dated 18.05.2023,
arising from a sessions trial where accused
were acquitted. Applicant was alleged to have
given false evidence but contended he was a
formal witness, not present at the incident,
and merely wrote the tahrir as dictated. The
court held that the trial court's order dated
03.11.2022 failed to comply with mandatory
conditions
under
Mahila
Vinod
Kumari,
requiring an express opinion that the witness
intentionally gave false evidence and that
summary punishment was necessary in the
interest of justice. No evidence showed the
applicant willfully provided false St.ments. The
impugned
order
and
proceedings
were
unsustainable for non-compliance with these
conditions, constituting an abuse of process.
Application allowed, proceedings, cognizance
order, and notice quashed. (Paras 6-8)

Application allowed.

List of Cases Cited:

1. Lalit Kumar Sharma & anr. Vs St. of U.P.,
2009 LawSuit(All) 2058

2. Sanjay Baburao Gitte Vs St. of Mah., 2017
LawSuit(Bom) 2798

3. Mahila Vinod Kumari Vs St. of M.P., [2008] 10
SCR 869

4. Narayanswamy Vs St. of Mah., (1971) 2 SCC
182

(Delivered by Hon'ble Gajendra Kumar, J.)

1.

Heard
Mr.
Satya
Prakash
Chaturvedi,
learned
counsel
for
the
applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
Perused the record.
1046 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash
as well as to stay the effect and operation of
the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc.
Case No.1 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijay
Singh and others) along with cognizance
cognizance order dated 12.01.2023 and
notice dated 18.5.2023 arising out of
judgement and order dated 03.11.2022
having
S.T.
No.38/2018
(State
vs.
Narayandas Kushwaha and another), under
Section
344
Cr.P.C.,
Police
Station
Nadigaon, District Jalaun, peding before
the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act,
Jalaun at Orai.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the
applicant is government teacher posted in a
Primary School. The father of the applicant
namely Durga Prasad lodged a first
information report against Narayan Das
Kushwaha, Suratan Singh and Lakhan
Singh under section 306 IPC and 3(2) (V)
SC/ST Act, Police Station Nadigaon,
District Jalaun on 20.10.2018. Applicant is
the writer of the tahrir spoken by his father
and villagers.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants
submits that applicant was informed
through mobile phone that his mother
committed suicide infront of the house of
Narayan Das Kushwaha in the night. It is
also submitted that the charge sheet in the
matter was submitted and statements were
recorded by the concerned investigating
officer. It is also submitted that the court
after examining the entire facts of the case
did not found the accused guilty and the
accused were exonerated. It is further
submitted that the applicant has been
alleged of providing false evidence to the
court and has been issued a show cause
notice
under
section
344
Cr.P.C.
Submission is that the applicant is merely a
formal witness of the incident. He was
neither present on the spot on the date and
place of occurrence nor he is an eye
witness of the alleged incident. Submission
is that the applicant has only written a
tahrir that was spoken by his father Durga
Prasad and villagers. Contention is that if
the proceedings against the applicant are
allowed to go on it will result in shear
abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
in order to demonstrate the truthfulness
upon his submissions has placed reliance
upon following judgements :-

(i) Lalit Kumar Sharma and
Anr. Vs. State of U.P. 2009 LawSuit(All)
2058

(ii) Sanjay Baburao Gitte Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra
2017
LawSuit(Bom) 2798

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has
opposed the submissions made by the
counsel for the applicant but could not
dispute the aforesaid facts.

6. The Apex Court in the case of
Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya
Pradesh [2008] 10 S.C.R. 869 has laid
down the guidelines regarding summoning
of accused under section 344 Cr.P.C. :-

"2.1. The purpose of enacting
Section 344, Cr.P.C. appears to be further
arm the Court with a weapon to deal with
more flagrant cases and not to take away
the weapon already in its possession. The
object
of
the
legislature
underlying
enactment of the provision is that the evil of
perjury and fabrication of evidence has to
be eradicated and can be better achieved
now as it is open to the courts to take
9 All. Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1047
recourse to Section 340(1) in cases in
which they are failed to take action under
Section 344 Cr.P.C?

2.2. For exercising the powers
under s.344/ the Code the Court at the time
of delivery of judgment or final order must
at the first instance express an opinion to
the effect that the witness before it has
either intentionally given false evidence or
fabricated such evidence. The second
condition is that the Court must come to the
conclusion that in the interests of justice
the witness concerned should be punished
summarily by it for the offence which
appears to have been committed by the
witness. And the third condition is that
before commencing the summary trial for
punishment the witness must be given
reasonable opportunity of showing cause
why he should not be so punished. All these
conditions arc mandatory. The object of the
provision is to deal with the evil of perjury
in a summary way. [Narayanswamy v.
State of Muharashtra, (1971) 2 SCC 182]

2.3. The evil of perjury has
assumed alarming propositions in cases
depending on oral evidence and in order to
deal with the menace effectively it is
desirable for the courts to use the provision
more effectively and frequently than it is
presently done."

7. Learned trial court while issuing
notice to the applicant has passed the order
dated 03.11.2022. Relevant portion of the
order reads as under :-

"अभियोजन साक्षीगण पी0 डब्लू02
भिजय भसिंह, पी0 डब्लू03 सोिरन भसिंह, पी0
डब्लू04 रामकुमार, पी0 डब्लू05 धमेंद्र भसिंह
द्वारा भििेचक को भिए गए धरा 161 ि0 प्र0 सिं0
के बयान के भिरुद्ध न्यायालय में साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत
की गयी है। अतः साक्षीगण उपरोक्त के भिरुद्ध
आपराभधक िाि अिंतगगत धरा 344 ि0 प्र0 सिं0
पिंजीकृत कर कारण बताओ नोभिस जारी भकया
जाये भक क्ोिं न न्यायालय में भमथ्या साक्ष्य िेने
हेतु ििंभडत भकया जाये?"

8. Considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case as well as the
statements of witnesses it does not appear
that the applicant had willfully and
knowingly given false statements. He was
merely a tahrir writer. He has not even seen
the alleged incident. From perusal of the
impugned order, it is apparent that
condition no.1 and 2 have not been
complied with while passing the impugned
order. No opinion to the effect that
witnesses concerned before it has either
intentionally given false evidence or
fabricated such evidence nor that the court
has come to the conclusion that in the
interest of justice the witnesses concerned
should be punished summarily by it for the
offence which appears to have been
committed by the witnesses. Therefore both
the condition no.1 and 2 as given in the
judgement of Mahila Vinod Kumari v.
State of Madhya Pradesh (supra) laid
down have not been complied with. Thus,
the impugned order is not sustainable in the
eyes of law. The application therefore
deserves to be allowed.

9. The application therefore is
allowed and the impugned cognizance
order dated 12.01.2023 and notice dated
18.5.2023 as well as entire proceedings of
Criminal Misc. Case No.1 of 2023, under
section
344
Cr.P.C.,
Police
Station
Nadigaon, District Jalaun, arising out of
Sessions Trial No.38 of 2018 (State Vs.
Narayandas Kushwaha and another) is
hereby set-aside.
----------
1048 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2023) 9 ILRA 1048
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 16871 of
2023
with
Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 27375 of
2023
with
Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 29855 of
2021
with
Criminal Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 29718 of
2023

Bhanwar Singh @ Karamvir ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Bratendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law-Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973-Section 439 - Constitution of India,
1950- Article 21--- Prolonged incarceration of
accused persons due to delay in trials violates
the fundamental liberties of the accused
guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India, when the trial is inordinately delayed
for no fault of the accused. Right to a speedy
trial is a fundamental right flowing from Article
21 of the Constitution of India---Chapter VI of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides
the procedure for compelling appearance of the
accused and witnesses to participate in the trial.
The provisions in Chapter VI of Cr.P.C.
contemplate a graduated process of coercive
measures to compel the appearance of the
accused and witnesses. The process is initiated
with issuance of summons which is to be
followed by bailable warrants. The measures are
escalated by taking out non bailable warrants.
The final stages in the process are proclamation
and
attachment---Failure
of
the
police
authorities to serve summons or execute
bailable warrants or non bailable warrants is
looked askance by the statute and the courts
alike---The courts are duly empowered under
the Code to take out penal proceedings against
defaulting police officials for failing to serve
summons or execute bailable warrants or nonbailable warrants. (Para12, 17, 24, 25 & 51)

Bail application allowed. (E-15)

List of Cases cited:

1. Gudikanti Narasimhulu & ors.Vs Public
Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh
(1978) 1 SCC 240

2. Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs St. (NCT of
Delhi) Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 915
of 2023

3.
Hussainara
Khatoon
&
ors.Vs
Home
Secretary, St. of Bihar 1980 (1) SCC 81

4. Anil Gaur @ Sonu @ Sonu Tomar Vs St. of
U.P (Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 16961 of
2022, 2022 SCC OnLine All 623

5. Ajeet Chaudhary Vs St. of U.P 2021
SCCOnLine All 17

6. Junaid Vs St. of U.P 2021 (6) ADJ 511

7. Monish Vs St. of U.P Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 55026 of 2021

8. Jitendra Vs St. of U.P Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No. 9126 of 2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1.

The
issue
that
arises
for
consideration in all connected matters is a
recurring theme in the criminal law process
in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is arising
regularly in bail applications before this
Court. The failure of the police to serve
summons and execute coercive processes
issued by the court and its consequences on