# Sanjeev Gupta v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13819 of 2019
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2018-02-20
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13819 of 2019
- **Bench:** Dinesh Pathak
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjeev-gupta-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46200
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - offence
effecting the administration of justice -
Scope - legislative intent that offence
committed should be of such nature which
directly effects the administration of
justice, viz., offence is committed after
document is produced or given in evidence
in court - provisions u/s 340 of CrPC come
into
play
while
offence
has
been
commissioned
subsequent
to
the
document produced in court (Para 19, 22)

B.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - offence
effecting the administration of justice -
Expression - 'any Court is of opinion that it
is expedient in the interests of justice' -
Meaning of - Held - denotes that Court, in
case, is of the opinion that enquiry should
be conducted in the interest of justice
then he will conduct a preliminary enquiry
and record a finding to that effect and
make
in
writing
complaint
to
the
Magistrate Ist Class having competent
jurisdiction (Para 20)

Application filed u/s 340 Cr.P.C before trial
alleging PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 falsely deposed
before the trial court - Applicant pointed out
that there was contradiction in the statements
made by them - Trial court rejected application -
Appellate Court observed that correctness of
statements of witness on oath are subject
matter of judicial examination and the accused
has no right to allege it to be false - Held -
Fact, as deposed by respondents no. 2 to 4, as
to whether the applicant had been taken by
respondents no. 2 to 4 or not to the police
station, is not going to effect the administration
of justice and conviction of the applicant is not
3-5 All. Sanjeev Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1693
reasonably probable or likely on this basis alone
(Para 27)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1.Iqbal Singh Marwah & anr. Vs Meenakshi
Marwah & anr. 2005 (4) SCC 370

2.Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2013
(15) SCC 539

3.Amarsang Nathaji As Himself Vs Hardik
Harshadbhai Patel & ors., 2017 (1) SCC 113

## Text

1692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.

18. On the basis of allegation made in
the first information report as well as from
the summoning order, this Court is of the
view that present prosecution is malicious
and amounts to abuse of process of law and
is also barred by limitation as prescribed
under Section 468 (2)(b) and the case is
squarely covered by the illustration (7)
made in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).

19. In view of what has been stated
above.
the
summoning
order
dated
20.2.2018 and bailable warrant dated
21.3.2018 passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior
Division)/Fast
Track
Court,
Gautam Budh Nagar as well as the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2946
of 2017 (Rajendra Kumar Vs. Charanjeet
Singh and others), under Section 323 of
IPC are unsustainable in the eyes of law
and are accordingly quashed.

20. In the result, the application
stands allowed.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1692
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13819 of 2019

Sanjeev Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeev Gupta (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Nitin Gupta

A.
Criminal
law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - offence
effecting the administration of justice -
Scope - legislative intent that offence
committed should be of such nature which
directly effects the administration of
justice, viz., offence is committed after
document is produced or given in evidence
in court - provisions u/s 340 of CrPC come
into
play
while
offence
has
been
commissioned
subsequent
to
the
document produced in court (Para 19, 22)

B.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - offence
effecting the administration of justice -
Expression - 'any Court is of opinion that it
is expedient in the interests of justice' -
Meaning of - Held - denotes that Court, in
case, is of the opinion that enquiry should
be conducted in the interest of justice
then he will conduct a preliminary enquiry
and record a finding to that effect and
make
in
writing
complaint
to
the
Magistrate Ist Class having competent
jurisdiction (Para 20)

Application filed u/s 340 Cr.P.C before trial
alleging PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 falsely deposed
before the trial court - Applicant pointed out
that there was contradiction in the statements
made by them - Trial court rejected application -
Appellate Court observed that correctness of
statements of witness on oath are subject
matter of judicial examination and the accused
has no right to allege it to be false - Held -
Fact, as deposed by respondents no. 2 to 4, as
to whether the applicant had been taken by
respondents no. 2 to 4 or not to the police
station, is not going to effect the administration
of justice and conviction of the applicant is not
3-5 All. Sanjeev Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1693
reasonably probable or likely on this basis alone
(Para 27)

Application dismissed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1.Iqbal Singh Marwah & anr. Vs Meenakshi
Marwah & anr. 2005 (4) SCC 370

2.Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2013
(15) SCC 539

3.Amarsang Nathaji As Himself Vs Hardik
Harshadbhai Patel & ors., 2017 (1) SCC 113

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)

01. Heard Shri Sanjeev Gupta,
applicant in person and Shri Nitin Gupta,
learned counsel for respondents no. 2 to 4
and Shri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A.
appearing for the State.

02. By means of the present
application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
the applicant has challenged the order dated
18.03.2019 passed by the 12th Additional
District & Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in
Criminal
Appeal
No.
114
of
2018
confirming the order dated 30.07.2018
passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate
VIIIth, Ghaziabad, rejecting the application
dated 30.07.2018 filed under Section 340
Cr.P.C.

03. The factual matrix of the case is
that the second marriage of the applicant
was solemnized with Ritu on 01.07.2012
according to rituals of Arya Samaj but
unfortunately the marriage did not prove
successful
due
to
several
reasons.
Ultimately, Ritu (wife of the applicant)
lodged an F.I.R. dated 09.08.2013 (Ex. Ka3) registered as Case Crime No. 331 of
2013 under Sections 498-A, 323, 377, 504
of
I.P.C.
and
Section
3/4
Dowry
Prohibition
Act,
P.S.
Link
Road,
Ghaziabad.

04. Charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-6) was
submitted against the applicant which led
to registration of a Criminal Case No. 75 of
2016. Applicant was held guilty under
Sections 498-A, 323 & 377 I.P.C. and
Section 4 of the D.P. Act but was
exonerated under Section 504 I.P.C. vide
order dated 12.09.2018 passed by the
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court
No. 08, Ghaziabad.

05. Against the aforesaid order dated
12.09.2018, present applicant preferred an
appeal, registered as Criminal Appeal No.
129 of 2018 and the same was partly
allowed vide order dated 30.05.2019 passed
by
the
Sessions
Judge,
Ghaziabad,
exempting him under Section 4 of the
Dowry
Prohibition
Act
however,
confirming the conviction under Sections
498-A, 323 and 377 I.P.C., and reducing
the sentence of five years, as awarded
under Section 377 I.P.C. by the trial court,
to four years with rigorous imprisonment.

06. Meanwhile, the Applicant moved
pendente lite application dated 30.07.2018
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the trial
court after the evidence of parties was
closed and the case was listed for final
hearing, beseeching criminal action against
PW-2 Shri Ashok Sabharwal (respondent
no. 2 father of the victim), PW-3 Smt.
Shashi Sabharwal (respondent no. 3 mother
of the victim) and PW-4 Smt. Neha
Sabharwal (respondent no. 4 Bhabhi of the
victim), on the ground of perjury.

07. Aforesaid application was rejected
on the same day vide order dated
30.07.2018 passed by A.C.J.M, Court No.8,
Ghaziabad observing that the accused-
1694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicant
has
deliberately
filed
this
application, at the stage of argument, just to
delay the court proceedings, therefore, no
sufficient ground is made out.

08. Aforesaid order dated 30.07.2019
was affirmed in Criminal Appeal No.114 of
2018 vide order dated 18.03.2019 by the
Additional Session Judge, Court No.12,
Ghaziabad, on the ground that the accused
has already been held guilty by the trial
court, therefore, there is no question of
false statements being made by the
witnesses. It has also been observed that
correctness of statements of witness on
oath
are
subject
matter
of
judicial
examination and the accused has no right to
allege it to be false. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfy with the appellate order dated
18.03.2019, the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is preferred with the
prayer for quashing the orders, passed by
the courts below.

09. Perusal of the order-sheet dated
27.11.2019 reveals that the applicant has
refused to file rejoinder affidavit to the
counter affidavit filed by the respondents.

10. I have carefully examined the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.

11. From the submission of the
parties, moot issue before me is whether
PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 have falsely
deposed before the trial court thereby
committing perjury and action for the same
is liable to be initiated under Section 340
read with 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

12. In application dated 30.07.2019 filed
under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. allegations leveled
against Smt. Neha Sabharwal (respondent no.
4) are that on 30.10.2015 she had deposed that
on 09.08.2013 when Ritu was alone, present
applicant Sanjeev Gupta manhandled and
abused her and, therefore, on her shouting Smt.
Neha Sabharwal (Bhabhi of Ritu) along with
her mother-in-law and father-in-law with the
help of passers-by caught hold the applicantSanjeev Gupta and took him to the police
station. On the other hand her mother-in-law
and father-in-law have denied on oath taking
Sanjeev Gupta to the police station. Smt. Neha
Sabharwal, in her statement recorded on
14.10.2013 under Section 161 Cr.P.C., had
corroborated the version of her father-in-law
and mother-in-law. As such, according to the
applicant-Sanjeev Gupta, he is aggrieved due to
the deposition made by respondents no. 2 to 4
qua taking him to the police station and has
tried to point out that there is a contradiction at
two stages of statement made by them.

13. Counsel for the respondents has
contended that application filed by the
applicant under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. was
based on the statement given by opposite
party nos. 2 to 4 during trial proceeding of
criminal case pending against the applicant,
therefore, the said application is not
maintainable in the eyes of law. It is also
contended that correctness of evidence,
given during the trial, is to be examined by
the trial court and provisions enumerated
under Section 195 Cr.P.C. cannot be relied
upon. He also emphasized that trial was
concluded
by
the
judgment
dated
12.09.2018
which
is
partly
affirmed/modified in Criminal Appeal vide
judgment dated 30.05.2019 and as such no
ground is made out to entertain the
contempt proceedings under Section 340 of
Cr.P.C.

14. Since the issue is related to the
maintainability
of
application
under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C., it would be
necessary to examine the provisions as
3-5 All. Sanjeev Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1695
embodied under Section 340 read with
Section 195 of Cr.P.C. and in particular the
provision which is relevant for our
purposes i.e. Section 195(b)(i)(ii), read as
under:-

"195. Prosecution for contempt of
lawful authority of public servants, for
offences against public justice and for
offences relating to documents given in
evidence- (1) No Court shall take cognizance--
-

(a)(i) .....................

(ii) .........................

(iii) ........................

(b) (i) of any offence punishable
under any of the following sections of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860 ), namely,
sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200,
205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when
such offence is alleged to have been
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding
in any Court, or

(ii) of any offence described in
section 463, or punishable under section 471,
section 475 or section 476, of the said Code,
when such offence is alleged to have been
committed in respect of a document produced
or given in evidence in a proceeding in any
Court, or

(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to
commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment
of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or
sub- clause (ii), except on the complaint in
writing of that Court, or of some other Court
to which that Court is subordinate."

15. The provision to initiate proceeding
for contempt of lawful authority of public
servants etc., Section 195 of Cr.P.C., is
envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which
reads as under :-

"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 interests 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 in 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.

(4) In this section,"Court" has
the same meaning as in section 195."
1696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

16. Section 195 creates a bar to
private prosecution. Normally, Section 190
of
Cr.P.C.
invokes
jurisdiction
to
Magistrate for taking cognizance of any
offence under conditions i.e. (a) on
receiving a complaint with respect to
constitution of offence, (b) upon a police
report with respect to incident and (c) upon
information received from any person other
than police officer or upon his own
knowledge. Provisions as embodied under
Section 195 of Cr.P.C. provides exception
to this general provision and creates
embargo upon power of the Court to take
cognizance on certain type of offences
enumerated therein. Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
clearly denotes that it deals with three
distinct category of offence which have
been described in Clause (a), (b)(i) and
(b)(ii), which relates to the contempt of
lawful authority of public servant, offence
against public justice and offences relating
to document given in evidence.

17. In the present matter in hand, the
applicant has made allegations with respect
to the correctness of contents of affidavit
which was filed as an statement on oath
during the court proceeding and tried to
make out an offence of perjury which is
said
to
have
been
committed
by
respondents no. 2 to 4.

18. Commission of offence, while any
document was submitted as an evidence
during court proceeding, can be examined
within the ambit of Section 195 (1) (b) (ii)
of Cr.P.C. Before discussing the scope of
Clause b (ii), I feel it apposite to discuss the
scope of Clause b (i) of Section 195 of
Cr.P.C. Clause (b) (i) refers to offence of
Chapter XI of I.P.C. which is captioned as
"Of false evidence and offence 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
proceeding in a court of justice. Likewise
provision as embodied under Clause (b) (ii)
also relates to the offence which directly
co-relate with the proceeding in a court of
justice. The expression i.e. "when such
offence is alleged to have been committed
in respect of a document produced or given
in evidence in a proceeding in any court"
should normally means that commission of
such offence after a document is actually
been produced or given in the court.
Meaning thereby offence should have been
committed at subsequent stage while the
document is produced and given in
evidence in a proceeding in any court.

19. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. falls under
chapter
XXVI
of
Cr.P.C.
which
is
captioned as "provisions as to offence
effecting the administration of justice".
There is a clear cut legislative intent that
offence committed should be of such nature
which directly effects the administration of
justice, viz., offence is committed after
document is produced or given in evidence
in court and enable the court to make a
complaint in respect of such offence if that
court is of the view that it is expedient in
the interest of justice that an enquiry should
be made into an offence. Clause (b) of
Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. authorizes such
court to examine prima facie as it think
necessary and then make a complaint
thereof in writing after having recording a
finding to that effect as contemplated under
Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C.

20. Bare perusal of Section 340
Cr.P.C. clearly shows that it is a subjective
3-5 All. Sanjeev Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1697
satisfaction of the court concerned as to
whether any enquiry should be made or not
into any offence referred to in clause (b) of
sub section 1 of Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
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 in evidence in
a proceeding in that case. Before initiating
the
proceeding
court
is
also
under
obligation
to
conduct
a
preliminary
enquiry. The phrase employed in Section
340 with respect to the cognizance to be
taken by the court is "Any Court is of
opinion that it is expedient in the interest
of justice". The term as mentioned in
Section 340 clearly denotes that Court, in
case, is of the opinion that enquiry should
be conducted in the interest of justice then
he will conduct a preliminary enquiry and
record a finding to that effect and make in
writing complaint to the Magistrate Ist
Class having competent jurisdiction.

21. Scope of Section 340 has already
been dealt with in detail by the Constitution
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another
vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Another
reported in 2005 (4) SCC, 370. Relevant
paragraph nos. 18, 25 & 26 of the aforesaid
judgment is quoted herein below :-

"18. In view of the language used
in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound
to make a complaint regarding commission of
an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as
the Section is conditioned by the words "Court
is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest
of justice." This shows that such a course will
be adopted only if the interest of justice
requires and not in every case. 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 interests of
justice that enquiry should be made into any
of the offences referred to in Section 195(i)(b).
This expediency will normally be judged by
the Court by weighing not the magnitude of
injury suffered by the person affected by such
forgery or forged document, but having
regard to the effect or impact, such
commission
of
offence
has
upon
administration of justice. It is possible that
such forged 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. The broad view of
clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel
for the appellants, would render the victim of
such forgery or forged document remedyless.
Any interpretation which leads to a situation
where a victim of a crime is rendered
remedyless, has to be discarded.

25. In view of the discussion
made above, we are of the opinion that
Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly
decided and the view taken therein is the
correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.
would be attracted only when the offences
enumerated in the said provision have
been
committed
with
respect
to
a
document after it has been produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in any
Court i.e. during the time when the
document was in custodia legis.

26. In the present case, the will
has
been
produced
in
the
Court
subsequently. It is nobody's case that any
offence
as
enumerated
in
Section
195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the
said will after it had been produced or
1698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed in the Court of District Judge.
Therefore, the bar created by Section
195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into
play and there is no embargo on the power
of the Court to take cognizance of the
offence on the basis of the complaint filed
by the respondents. The view taken by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge and the
High Court is perfectly correct and calls
for no interference.

22. In the case of Iqbal Singh
Marwaha (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court
laid at rest the controversy with regard to
the scope and applicability of the bar
contained under Section 195 of Cr.P.C., it
is clear that where the forgery is said to
have been committed outside the court and
before the document is produced in court
then the bar under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
would not operate and Magistrate can take
cognizance of a complaint filed by an
aggrieved party and would not be necessary
to adopt the procedure laid down under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Meaning thereby,
on the reverse, provisions under Section
340 of Cr.P.C. come into play while
offence has been commissioned subsequent
to the document produced in court and after
conducting preliminary enquiry, court can
make complaint for such offence to take
penal action.

23. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the respondents has
cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal vs. Union of India & Others
reported in 2013 (15) SCC, 539. In the
aforesaid case offence of perjury has been
leveled against Investigating Officer who
has said to have been filed a false affidavit
with respect to completion of enquiry but
subsequently it has been found that some
further enquiry was conducted with respect
to the incident in question. Hon'ble
Supreme Court has discussed the scope of
Section 340 read with Section 195 of
Cr.P.C. and came to the conclusion that
there was no attempt at the part of the
Investigating Officer to mislead the court.

24. Relevant paragraph nos. 7 & 8 are
quoted herein below :-

"7. In this context, reference
may be made of Section 340 under
Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C., under the
heading of "Provisions as to Offences
Affecting the Administration of Justice".
This
Chapter
deals
with
offences
committed
in or
in
relation
to a
proceeding in the court, or in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence
in a proceeding in the court and enables
the court to make a complaint in respect
of such offences if that court is of the view
that it is expedient in the interest of justice
that an inquiry should be made into an
offence. Clause (b) of Section 195 (1)
Cr.P.C. authorises such court to examine
prima facie as it thinks necessary and then
make a complaint thereof in writing after
having recorded a finding to that effect as
contemplated under Section 340 (1)
Cr.P.C. In such a case, the question
remains as to whether a prima facie case
is made out which, if unrebutted, may
have a reasonable likelihood to establish
the specified offences and whether it is
also expedient in the interest of justice to
take any action. Thus, before lodging a
complaint, the condition precedent for the
court to be satisfied are that material so
produced before the court makes out a
prima facie case for a complaint and that
it is expedient in the interest of justice to
have prosecution under Section 193 IPC.
(Vide: Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara
Warrier & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 290; and
3-5 All. Sanjeev Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1699
K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India,
AIR 1992 SC 1831). "

"8. In the case of Chajoo Ram v.
Radhey Shyam & Anr., AIR 1971 SC
1367, this Court held: "7. The prosecution
for perjury should be sanctioned by courts
only in those cases where the perjury
appears to be deliberate and conscious
and the conviction is reasonably probable
or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence
and filing false affidavits is an evil which
must be effectively curbed with a strong
hand but to start prosecution for perjury
too readily and too frequently without due
care and caution and on inconclusive and
doubtful material defeats its very purpose.
Prosecution should be ordered when it is
considered expedient in the interests of
justice to punish the delinquent and not
merely because there is some inaccuracy
in the statement which may be innocent or
immaterial. There must be prima facie
case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of
substance and the court should be
satisfied
that
there
is
reasonable
foundation for the charge." (Emphasis
added)"

25. Counsel for the respondents has
also placed reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Amarsang
Nathaji
As
Himself
vs.
Hardik Harshadbhai Patel And Others
reported in 2017 (1) SCC, 113 wherein
case of Iqbal Singh Marwaha (supra) was
referred.

26. In view of the discussion made
herein above, it is lucid that alleged crime
of perjury as stated by the applicant in his
application dated 30.07.2019 filed under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is not going to, in
any manner, effect the administration of
justice which warrants any interference of
the Court for moving complaint qua
offence, which is said to have been
committed while document was in custodia
legis.

27. Mere fact, as deposed by
respondents no. 2 to 4, as to whether the
applicant had been taken by respondents
no. 2 to 4 or not to the police station, is not
going to effect the administration of justice
and conviction of the applicant is not
reasonably probable or likely on this basis
alone.

28. Learned trial court has not found
the present case fit, in the interest of
justice, to enquire into with respect to
offence of perjury said to have been
committed by respondents no. 2 to 4 and
rightly rejected the application on the
ground that application was deliberately
filed by the applicant, at the final stage of
hearing, to prolong the litigation. There
was no occasion to invoke the jurisdiction
of
the
court
concerned
to
initiate
proceeding
of
contempt
against
the
contesting respondents no. 2 to 4 for
alleged offence of perjury. No offence
made out while document was in custodia
legis. As per allegation made by the
applicant that contesting respondents no. 2
to 4 have filed false statement before the
court, meaning thereby, offence of perjury
allegedly
committed
made
by
the
contesting respondents no. 2 to 4 would be
prior to submission of documents in
judicial proceeding in court. Therefore, as
per law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwaha
(supra), no case is made out to invoke the
jurisdiction of court concerned under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

29. The applicant has further argued
that the courts below have committed
illegality in not relying upon the provisions
1700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as embodied under Section 343 Cr.P.C. &
194 I.P.C. In my opinion, provisions as
embodied under Section 343 Cr.P.C. is not
applicable in the instant case inasmuch as it
provides the procedure to be followed by
the Magistrate before whom the complaint
is made by the Court concerned after
conducting
preliminary
enquiry under
Section
340
Cr.P.C.
Provisions
as
contained under Section 194 I.P.C. are also
not attracted inasmuch as it relates to
giving or fabricating false evidence with
intent to procure conviction of capital
offence whereas the present matter relates
to offence under Sections 498-A, 323, 377,
504 of I.P.C. & 3⁄4 Dowry Prohibition Act.

30. The applicant has also submitted
that no reason has been assigned by the
court below in rejecting the application
dated 30.07.2019. In support of his
contention, he has cited judgment dated
29.09.2008 passed by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1549 of
2008; State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Manoj
Kumar @ Chotu. Aforesaid cited case is
arising out of criminal trial under Section
376, 511 & 506 of I.P.C. Learned trial
court has acquitted accused giving him the
benefit of doubt. Against the order of
acquittal, appeal was filed along with an
application for grant of leave in terms of
Section
378
of
Cr.P.C.
Aforesaid
application under Section 378 of Cr.P.C.
was dismissed summarily merely stating
'Dismissed'.

31. Against the order of dismissal of
above
application,
criminal
appeal
was
preferred. In those circumstances the Hon'ble
Apex Court had observed that reason has to be
assigned for refusing grant of leave to file
appeal against acquittal and accordingly
allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to
the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits.
Aforesaid
cited
judgment
is
clearly
distinguishable from the facts of the present
case inasmuch as the order in question has to be
examined under the scope of Section 340 of
Cr.P.C., apart from that the courts below has
discussed the case of the applicant and found no
ground of interference. Even otherwise, as
discussed above, no offence has been
committed during the time when the documents
was in custodia legis.

32. It is admitted to the parties that the
applicant has preferred Criminal Revision No.
2618 of 2019 (Sanjeev Gupta vs. State of U.P.
& Others) assailing the order dated 30.05.2019
passed by the Sessions Judge, Ghaziabad in
Criminal Appeal No. 129 of 2018. The
aforesaid revision is still pending and by this
Court vide order dated 09.07.2019, the
applicant has been enlarged on bail. Therefore,
the matter is still sub judice before this Court
and the correctness of orders passed by the
courts below in original proceeding are still to
be examined. Both the courts below have
passed conviction order against the applicant
relying upon the statements made by witnesses,
therefore, at this juncture statement made by
respondents no. 2 to 4 cannot be held to be false
or be held guilty of committing perjury.

33. The present application moved
by the applicant lacks merit and deserves
to be dismissed. No sufficient ground is
shown to invoke the inherent power of
this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Application
dated
30.07.2018
under
Section 340 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant
has rightly been rejected by the courts
below.

34. The present application filed
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
Parties shall bear their own cost.
----------
3-5 All. Abid & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1701
(2020)03-05ILR A1701
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 18951 of 2015

Abid & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri A.P. Tewari, R.S. Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal law-Criminal Procedure Code (2 of
1974) - Section 482 - Quashing of charge
sheet & entire proceeding - FIR lodged
u/Ss.363,366,354,506,342,120-B of IPC -
Accusation that accused enticed away
victim & sum of Rs.5,00,000/ and also took
away gold & silver ornament - in medical
examination victim was found to be 18 yrs
old - Victim in her statement u/s 164 CrPC
stated she left her house out of her own
sweet & she was never enticed by anyone-
Held - Victim a major grown up girl - had
gone willingly with accused - no force was
applied to outrage her modesty nor she
was kidnapped and that she married
accused out of her own sweet will and is
living as husband and wife with him - No
offence made out - Court quashed entire
proceeding. (Para 21)

Application Allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited :

1. St. of Har. Vs Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp(1) SCC
335

2. Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia Vs Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre (1988) 1 SCC 692
3. Rupan Deol Bajaj Vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill
(1995) 6 SCC 194

4.C.B.I. Vs Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., (1996)
5 SCC 591

5. St. of Bihar Vs Rajendra Agrawalla (1996) 8
SCC 164

6. Rajesh Bajaj Vs St. NCT of Delhi (1999) 3
SCC 259

7.Medchl Chemicals & Pharma (P) Ltd Vs
Biological E. Ltd (2000) 3 SCC 269

8. Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs St. of Bihar
(2000) 4 SCC 168

9. M. Krishnan Vs Vijay Singh (2001) 8 SCC 645

10. Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs Mohd.
Sharaful Haque ( 2005) 1 SCC 122

11. Rishipal Singh Vs St. of U.P. and Anr., AIR
2014 SC 2567

12. Om Prakash & ors. Vs St. of Jharkhand 2012
(12) SCC 72

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. List revised.

2. Counsel for the opposite party no. 2
is not present.

3. Heard learned counsel for the
applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. This application has been filed
with a prayer to quash the impugned
charge sheet dated 15.02.2014 in Case
Crime No. 2287 of 2013, under Sections
363, 366, 354, 506, 342, 120-B I.P.C. as
well as entire proceeding of S.T. No. 1200
of 2014 "State Vs. Abid and another"
under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., Police
Station- Indrapuram, District Ghaziabad.