# Smt. Sufia v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 597 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-09-03 - **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 33290 of 2025 - **Bench:** Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-sufia-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53937 - **Pages:** 4 ## Headnote conduct preliminary enquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Headnotes Code of Criminal Proceeding-sec 195(3), 340; Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953 -sec 40-conjoint reading of Section 40 of the Act, 1953 and Section 195(3) Cr.P.C.- it is clear that consolidation authorities including the Consolidation Officer are revenue court- same is court for the purpose of Section 340 Cr.P.C.-if any false document is produced or false evidence is given before the Consolidation Officer- would be within its jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary enquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. in relating to the offence u/s 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Held, From perusal of Section 195(3) Cr.P.C., it is clear that revenue court is also a court and as per Section 40 of the Act, 1953, proceeding before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer would be judicial proceeding.(para 7) (E-9) Case Law Cited Nil List of Acts ## Text 9 All. Smt. Sufia Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 597 Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, for compliance forthwith. 60. A copy of this order shall also be sent to (i) Union Home Secretary, Government of India; (ii) Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways (MoRTH); (iii) Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), and (iv) Secretary, Press Council of India for information and future reference. --------- (2025) 9 ILRA 597 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.09.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J. Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 33290 of 2025 Smt. Sufia ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Abhishek Krishna Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Issue for consideration Whether Consolidation Officer has jurisdiction to conduct preliminary enquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. Headnotes Code of Criminal Proceeding-sec 195(3), 340; Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953 -sec 40-conjoint reading of Section 40 of the Act, 1953 and Section 195(3) Cr.P.C.- it is clear that consolidation authorities including the Consolidation Officer are revenue court- same is court for the purpose of Section 340 Cr.P.C.-if any false document is produced or false evidence is given before the Consolidation Officer- would be within its jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary enquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. in relating to the offence u/s 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. Held, From perusal of Section 195(3) Cr.P.C., it is clear that revenue court is also a court and as per Section 40 of the Act, 1953, proceeding before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer would be judicial proceeding.(para 7) (E-9) Case Law Cited Nil List of Acts 1. Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953 2. Code of Criminal Proceeding List of Keywords Sec. 340 Cr.P.C.; preliminary enquiry regarding the offence u/s 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.; Appearances of parties Counsel for Applicant(s) : Abhishek Krishna Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. (Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal, J.) 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been filed for the following relief: "It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Azamgarh to conclude and decide the Misc. Case No.5 of 2023 [Sufia Vs Mohd. Wamik) under Section 340(2) of Cr. P.C., as well as direct the Consolidation Officer Phoolpur, District Azamgarh to conclude and decide the Misc. Case of 2019 (Sufia Vs Mohd. Wamik) under 598 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Section 340 of Cr. P.C., pending before them for a long time, within the shortest period of time to be stipulated by the Hon'ble Court to avoid all inconvenience to the Applicant in the interest of justice." 3. Learned AGA has raised preliminary objection that application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable before the Consolidation Officer as the consolidation authorities are not the competent court as required u/s 340 Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant in reply to the preliminary objection raised by the learned AGA submitted that proceeding before the consolidation authorities is judicial proceeding as per Section 40 of Uttar Pradesh Consolidation Holdings Act, 1953 (in short 'the Act, 1953'). Therefore, if any false evidence has been filed before the Consolidation Officer then the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. would be maintainable before the Consolidation Officer. 5. To decide the aforesaid legal issue, it would be appropriate to discuss basic ingredients of Section 340 Cr.P.C. For ready reference, Section 340 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 379 BNSS) is being quoted 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 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 nonbailable 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." 6. From perusal of Section 340 Cr.P.C., it is clear that it basically provides procedure for conducting preliminary enquiry to satisfy whether offence u/s 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. in respect of a document produced and given evidence in the proceeding of a court is prima facie made 9 All. Smt. Sufia Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 599 out. Therefore, it is a procedure for satisfaction of court before filing a complaint regarding production or giving any forged document in relation to the proceeding of court and the proceeding u/s 195 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated without a complaint. Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. provides procedure of taking cognizance for the offence u/s 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 463, 471, 475, 476 or abetment of any of these offences which relates to giving or producing false evidence in a proceeding of any court. Section 195(3) Cr.P.C. defines the term 'court' as civil, revenue or criminal court including Tribunal constituted by or under the Central, Provincial or State Act. Section 195(3) Cr.P.C. is being quoted as under: "195(3). In clause (b) of subsection (1), the term "Court" means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court and includes a Tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act, if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section." 7. From perusal of Section 195(3) Cr.P.C., it is clear that revenue court is also a court and as per Section 40 of the Act, 1953, proceeding before the Settlement Officer Consolidation, Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer would be judicial proceeding. Section 40 of the Act, 1953 is being quoted as under: "40. Proceeding before Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer to be judicial proceedings. - A proceeding before a [Director of Consolidation, Deputy Director, Consolidation] [Inserted by U.P. Act No. 38 of 1958.], Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Consolidation Officer and Assistant Consolidation Officer shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 and for purposes of Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code." 8. Therefore with conjoint reading of Section 40 of the Act, 1953 and Section 195(3) Cr.P.C., it is clear that consolidation authorities including the Consolidation Officer are revenue court, therefore, same is court for the purpose of Section 340 Cr.P.C. and if any false document is produced or false evidence is given before the Consolidation Officer then the Consolidation Officer would be, within its jurisdiction to conduct the preliminary enquiry u/s 340 Cr.P.C. in relating to the offence u/s 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. 9. In view of the above analysis, this court is of the opinion that application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 379 BNSS) is maintainable and Consolidation Officer or other consolidation authorities would be, well within their jurisdiction to conduct preliminary enquiry regarding the offence u/s 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. relating to giving or producing false document or evidence before it and after enquiry if the consolidation authorities are of the opinion that prima facie offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195 Cr.P.C. is made out then it will record its finding to that effect and make such complaint in writing and send it to the Magistrate of first class having jurisdiction thereof. 10. Considering the fact that application of the present applicant u/s 340 Cr.P.C. has been pending before the opposite party no.3-Consolidation Officer, Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh since 2019 600 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES but till date even the number has not been allotted to the misc. case to the file of application u/s 340 Cr.P.C., present application is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party no.3-Consolidation Officer, Phoolpur, District-Azamgarh to decide the application of the applicant u/s 340 Cr.P.C., expeditiously. --------- (2025) 9 ILRA 600 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. Application U/S 482 No. 44649 of 2024 Smt. Geeta Devi ...Applicant Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicants: Gaurav Singh Tomar, Subhash Gosain Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Issue for consideration Regarding maintainability of Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. if approached after approaching the Revisional Court under Sections 397 or 399 Cr.P.C. Headnotes Maintainability-sec. 482 Cr.P.C.- Preliminary objection for maintainability - powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are not dependent on any other provisions of the Cr.P.C.- despite there being an express provision under Sections 397(3) and 399(3) Cr.P.C.- there cannot be a total ban on power u/s 482 Cr.P.C.- merely because the applicant has approached this Court after having approached the Revisional Court under Sections 397 or 399 Cr.P.C.- Section 482 Cr.P.C. application cannot be rejected on this ground alone- facts of the caseabetment of suicide must be express and cannot be implied- no express abetment to suicide-impugned order- facts has been duly appreciated by the trial court before rejecting the complaint case filed by the applicant. Application dismissed. (E-9) Case Law Cited 1. Dharampal & Ors. vs. Ramshri : 1993 (1) SCC 435 2. Deepti alias Arati Rai vs. Akhil Rai & Ors. : 1995 (5) SCC 751 3. Rajathi vs C. Ganesan : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1118 4. Krishnan and Another vs. Krihnaveni and Another: AIR 1997 Supreme Court 987 5. Lakshmi Bai Patel vs. Shyam Kumar Patel : 2002 3 JT 409 6. Mohit vs. State of U.P. : 2013 (7) SCC 789 7. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 718 of 2006 (Jagveer vs. State of U.P. and Another) 8. Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra [(1977) 4 SCC 551 : 1978 9. Raj Kapoor v. State, (1980) 1 SCC 43 10. Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 2 SCC 370 SCC (Cri) 10] 11. Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 16 SCC 30 12. Vijay v. State of Maharashtra, (2017) 13 SCC 317 13. Kaisar Jaha v. S.P., Distt. Sultanpur, 2024 SCC OnLine All 6758 14. Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P. and 7 Others (Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C.No. 14485 of 2024) 15. Nandu Alias Nandlal vs. State of U.P. and 7 Others (Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 2241 of 2025) dated 09.05.2025 List of Acts 1. Code of Criminal Procedure List of Keywords Sections 397 or 399 Cr.P.C.; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; preventing the abuse of the process of court or securing the ends of justice;exercise such power with self-restraint Appearances of parties Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gaurav Singh Tomar, Subhash Gosain Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.