# Smt. Indra Gandhi & Anr v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 527
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-22
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1210 of 2021
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-indra-gandhi-anr-v-state-of-u-p-46846
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Impugned notice passed u/s
344 Cr.P.C.-for giving false evidencedetail order since already passed-notice
impugned need not to be elaborate-as
detail order already passed-Appeal also
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed-proper remedy to invoke provision
u/s 344 (4)-appropriate response.

Application dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

2 All. Smt. Indra Gandhi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
527

Serious disability or ill health of
a spouse, child / children from the
marriage / dependant relative who require
constant care and recurrent expenditure,
would also be a relevant consideration
while quantifying maintenance."

7. The fact that the revisionist is
employed and working in the Indian
Railways and is a government servant and
is getting a salary after the necessary
deductions which is Rs. 40,186/- in the year
2016 is a fact for which a specific finding
has been returned by the court below based
on evidence on record and documents.

8. As of now, the fact of rise in
inflation, rise of cost of living and also
taking into account that the girl child was
born in the year 2004 and as of now is
about 16 years of age and is of the age of a
school going child and also taking into
consideration the salary of the revisionist
which keeps on increasing every year by
means of dearness allowance, increment
etc. cannot be ignored.

9. Having taken into consideration,
the relevant factors for determining the
quantum of maintenance in the light of the
legal principles laid by the Apex Court and
the facts of the present case, this Court is of
the view that the amount of maintenance as
awarded is appropriate and there is no
irregularity and illegality in the order
impugned.

10. The present revision is thus
dismissed.

11. Since the present revision has
been dismissed, hence the interim order
dated 29.08.2016 passed in the matter by
this Court stands discharged.

12. The lower court records be sent
back to the concerned court forthwith.

13. The party(ies) shall file computer
generated
copy
of
such
judgment
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad before the concerned
Court/Authority/Official.

14. The computer generated copy of
such judgment shall be self-attested by the
counsel(s) of the party(ies) concerned.

15.

The
concerned
Court/Authority/Official shall verify the
authenticity of such computerized copy of
the judgment from the official website of
High Court Allahabad and shall make a
declaration of such verification in writing.
----------
(2021)02ILR A527
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 1210 of 2021

Smt. Indra Gandhi & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Prashant Sharma

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

Criminal Law-Impugned notice passed u/s
344 Cr.P.C.-for giving false evidencedetail order since already passed-notice
impugned need not to be elaborate-as
detail order already passed-Appeal also
528 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
filed-proper remedy to invoke provision
u/s 344 (4)-appropriate response.

Application dismissed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra
Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prashant Sharma, learned
counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj
Saxena, learned A.G.A.-I for the Stateopposite party.

2. The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to
quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case
No. 17 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Shyamlal
and another) under Section 344 Cr.P.C.,
pending in the court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Devband, District- Saharanpur as well
as the notice dated 3.11.2020, under the said
proceedings.

3. Facts of the case are that pursuant to
a First Information Report dated 23.9.2014,
lodged by the son of the applicants under
Sections 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, registered
as Case Crime No. 727 of 2014, P.S.-
Devband, District- Saharanpur, a charge sheet
was submitted and thereafter, the trial was
initiated.

4. The sessions trial, being Sessions
Trial No. 529 of 2015 was decided in terms
of an order dated 8.10.2020 whereunder, the
accused Dileep was acquitted. The Court of
Session, at the time of delivery of the
judgement, expressed an opinion to the effect
that the main witnesses in the case i.e. P.W.
2- Shyam Lal (applicant no. 2 herein) and
P.W. 3- Smt. Indra Gandhi (applicant no. 1
herein) had wilfully given false evidence, and
accordingly, proceedings under Section 344
Cr.P.C. were directed to be initiated against
them.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a
notice dated 3.11.2020 has been issued to the
applicants directing them to show cause. It is
at this stage that the present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

6. Counsel for the applicants has sought
to contend that the aforesaid notice dated
3.11.2020, which according to him, is a
summoning order, has been issued on a
printed proforma, without application of
mind and accordingly, the proceedings
initiated
pursuant
thereto,
cannot
be
sustained.

7. Learned counsel for the applicants
also asserts that against the aforesaid
judgement dated 8.10.2020, passed by the
Court of Session, an appeal against
acquittal, has been filed being Criminal
Appeal U/S 372 Cr.P.C. Defective No. -
118 of 2020, dated 11.8.2020, before this
Court, which is stated to be pending.

8. Per contra, Sri Pankaj Saxena,
learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the Stateopposite party no. 1 submits that the notice
dated 3.11.2020 issued to the applicants in
respect of the opinion expressed by the
Court of Session in its judgement dated
8.10.2020, is simply a notice for showing
cause and cannot be said to be a
summoning order. He submits that no
detailed reasons are required to be stated
therein and the contention of the counsel
for the applicants that it has been issued on
a printed proforma, is totally without basis.

9. It is further submitted that in case
the applicants have filed an appeal against
the judgement dated 8.10.2020 passed in
the sessions trial and if the aforesaid appeal
is in order, it would be open to the
applicants to apprise the court below of the
said fact and make a prayer for staying the
2 All. Smt. Indra Gandhi & Anr. Vs. State of U.P.
529
proceedings of the trial as per sub-section
(4) of Section 344 Cr.P.C.

10. In order to appreciate the rival
contentions, the relevant statutory provisions
may be adverted to.

11. The provisions as to offences
affecting the administration of justice are given
under Chapter XXVII of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. Section 344 provides a
summary procedure for trial for giving false
evidence. The provisions under Section 344
Cr.P.C., are as follows :-

"344. Summary procedure for
trial for giving false evidence.-(1) If, at the
time of delivery of any judgment or final order
disposing of any judicial proceeding, a Court of
Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses
an opinion to the effect that any witness
appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or
wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated
false evidence with the intention that such
evidence should be used in such proceeding, it
or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and
expedient in the interest of justice that the
witness should be tried summarily for giving or
fabricating, as the case may be, false evidence,
take cognizance of the offence and may, after
giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of
showing cause why he should not be punished
for such offence, try such offender summarily
and sentence him to imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three months, or to fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees, or
with both.

(2) In every such case the Court shall
follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the
procedure prescribed for summary trials.

(3) Nothing in this section shall
affect the power of the Court to make a
complaint under section 340 for the offence,
where it does not choose to proceed under this
section.

(4) Where, after any action is
initiated under sub- section (1), it is made to
appear to the Court of Session or Magistrate of
the first class that an appeal or an application for
revision has been preferred or filed against the
judgment or order in which the opinion referred
to in that sub- section has been expressed, it or
he shall stay further proceedings of the trial
until the disposal of the appeal or the
application for revision, as the case may be, and
thereupon the further proceedings of the trial
shall abide by the results of the appeal or
application for revision."

12. The provisions contained under
Section 344 Cr.P.C. provide a summary
procedure for trial for giving false evidence
in a case, if the Court of Session or
Magistrate of the first class, at the time of
delivery of any judgement or final order
disposing of any judicial proceeding,
expresses an opinion to the effect that any
witness appearing in such proceeding had
knowingly or wilfully given false evidence
or had fabricated false evidence with the
intention that such evidence should be used
in such proceeding.

13. The section provides a summary
procedure, which empowers the Court of
Session or Magistrate of the first class to
try such offenders summarily, in case it is
satisfied that the same is necessary and
expedient in the interest of justice. It is
provided that before proceeding, the
offender is to be provided a reasonable
opportunity of showing cause why he
should not be punished for such offence. In
terms of sub-section (2), the Court is
enjoined to follow, as nearly as may be
practicable, the procedure prescribed for
summary trials.

14. Under Section 344 Cr.P.C., the
Court of Session or Magistrate of the first
530 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
class is empowered to try cases of perjury
committed before him and punish the
offenders summarily. The provision is of a
limited scope, being confined to obvious
cases of perjury and authorizing a small
punishment. The exercise of powers under
the section is discretionary. The section
authorizes the court to exercise the power
only at the time of delivery of the
judgement or final order and not earlier.
Before trying the offender, the Court is
required to give him reasonable opportunity
of showing cause why he should not be
punished for such an offence.

15. The provisions contained under subsection (4) of Section 344 provide that where,
after any action is initiated under sub-section
(1), it is made to appear to the Court of
Session or Magistrate of the first class that an
appeal or an application for revision has been
preferred or filed against the judgement or
order in which the opinion referred to in that
sub-section has been expressed, it or he shall
stay further proceedings of the trial until the
disposal of the appeal or the application for
revision, as the case may be, and thereupon
the further proceedings of the trial shall abide
by the results of the appeal or application for
revision.

16. Sub-section (4) of Section 344 gives
the Court power to stop further proceedings
of any summary trial initiated under the
Section, if it is brought to its notice that an
appeal or a revision application has been
preferred against the judgement or order in
the main proceedings. It would also follow
that pending the disposal of the appeal or
revision, if any sentence has been imposed in
sub-section (1), the same would not be
executed.

17. The order dated 3.11.2020 has
been issued for the purpose of giving the
applicants an opportunity of showing cause
pursuant to the opinion expressed by the
Court of Session in its judgement dated
8.10.2020. The object of the order being to
put the applicants to notice by providing
them a reasonable opportunity of showing
cause pursuant to the opinion already
expressed
in
the
judgement
dated
8.10.2020, the Court was not required to
give elaborate reasons for its satisfaction
for proceeding summarily to try the
witnesses for giving false evidence. The
purpose is only to notify the persons
concerned to submit their response.

18. At this stage, the Court of Session
or the Magistrate is only required to be
satisfied that there is sufficient ground to
proceed to try the witnesses summarily and
not that there is sufficient ground to punish
them. The order dated 3.11.2020, therefore,
cannot be faulted with for the reason that
the same does not contain elaborate or
detailed reasons.

19. In the event an appeal has been
preferred against the judgement dated
8.10.2020 passed in the sessions trial, as is
sought to be contended, and if the appeal is
in order, it would be open to the applicants
herein to invoke the provisions contained
under sub-section (4) of Section 344
Cr.P.C.
and
move
an
appropriate
application before the court concerned in
response to the notice dated 3.11.2020.

20. Counsel for the applicants has not
disputed the aforestated legal position, and
makes a prayer to withdraw the present
application stating that he would file an
appropriate application/response to the
notice dated 3.11.2020 issued by the court
below
pursuant
to
the
order
dated
8.10.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 529
of 2015.
2 All. Deepak Singh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
531

21. The application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. stands dismissed accordingly.
----------
(2021)02ILR A531
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SAROJ YADAV, J.

U/S 482/378/407 No. 6256 of 2019

Deepak Singh & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Ajai Kumar Singh, Shobhit Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law-Name of the Petitioners
were dropped from the chargesheet-on
account of separate living-summoned in
Application u/s 319 Cr.P.C.- on the basis
of Pws cross-examined by defence-no
illegality in summoning order.

Application rejected. (E-7)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Brijendra Singh & ors. Vs St. of Raj. (2017)
SC 2839

2.Hardeep Singh Vs St. of Punj. & ors. 2014(3)
SCC 92

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav, J.)

1. This petition has been filed by the
petitioners praying to quash/set aside the
order dated 10.05.2019 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11,
Hardoi in Sessions Trial No. 47/18 (State
Vs. Dharamveer Singh and Others) and
Crime No. 203/17.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 and learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing on behalf
of the State.

3.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners
were named in the first information report
but after investigation, the Investigating
Officer found that the petitioners were
not present in the Village at the time of
incident and the location of the petitioner
no. 1 was in Delhi and Haryana since
01.10.2017 till 15.10.2017, whereas the
alleged
incident
took
place
on
12.10.2017. The petitioner no. 2 is the
wife of the petitioner no. 1 and she is
residing with him. Both the petitioners
are residing separately since 2015, the
petitioner no. 1 is doing a private job in
Delhi. On the basis of the evidence
collected
during
investigation,
the
Investigating Officer did not find any
involvement of the petitioners in the
alleged crime, as such, he dropped the
names of the petitioners but during trial,
the informant moved an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the
petitioners as accused and learned Trial
Court
allowed
the
same
without
considering the material available on
record i.e. call details of the petitioner no.
1, availed by the Investigating Officer.
Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submitted that learned Trial Court
has
passed
the
impugned
order
summoning the petitioners as accused
persons only on the basis of the evidence
of P.W. 1 to 4, which is not justified, so
the impugned order should be quashed.