Punjab-Haryana High Court
Idrish vs The State Of Haryana And Another on 12 December, 2012
Author: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Bench: Mehinder Singh Sullar
Crl.Appeal No.761-SB of 2002 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.Appeal No.761-SB of 2002(O&M)
Date of Decision:12.12.2012
Idrish .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana and another .....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.
Present: Mr.Sunil Panwar, Advocate,
for the appellant.
Mr.Gaurav Verma, Asstt.Advocate General, Haryana,
for the respondent-State.
****
MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts and material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant appeal and emanating from the record is that, on 04.06.2000, appellant-Idrish son of Amir, working as a Salesman was present at the Petrol Pump, in question, along with his co-salesman Manoj Kumar. Accused Nandu son of Ram Lakhan Yadav, Sanjay @ Tita son of Ram Parshad Gujjar, Sumer son of Ved Ram Gujjar and Babu Lal @ Babu son of Richpal Gujjar, came there and demanded the petrol. Thereafter, the accused came in the office. The prosecution claimed that Sanjay @ Tita accused caught hold of Manoj Kumar by collar and put country-made pistol on his ear-pit, whereas Sumer accused pointed the knife on his(Idrish) chest. They demanded the keys of the locker. The other accused also participated in the commission of heinous offence and looted cash from the Petrol Pump.
2. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence Crl.Appeal No.761-SB of 2002 2 of events, in all, according to the prosecution that, all the accused took out the currency notes of `32,000/- from the cash box at gun point and caused injuries with the knife to the appellant. In the background of these allegations, a criminal case was registered against the indicated accused, by virtue of FIR No.111 dated 04.06.2000, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 IPC, by the police of Police Station Tauru, District Gurgaon.
3. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report(challan). The accused were accordingly charge- sheeted for the commission of the pointed offences by the trial court and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution.
4. The prosecution in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, inter alia, examined many witnesses, including the appellant-Idrish as PW-17, wherein, he has categorically stated on oath and supported the prosecution version on all vital counts vide his statement dated 12.11.2001(Annexure A-2).
5. Thereafter, the appellant was recalled for further cross- examination by the trial Court, where instead of supporting, he has totally demolished the prosecution story in its entirety, by way of his subsequent statement dated 15.03.2002(Annexure A-3).
6. Faced with the situation, learned Public Prosecutor moved the complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C., for initiating the legal action and to prosecute the appellant-Idrish, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 193 and 196 IPC.
7. The trial Judge accepted the prayer and lodged the impugned Crl.Appeal No.761-SB of 2002 3 complaint(Annexure A-1) against him(appellant) under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
8. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal, to challenge the impugned complaint(Annexure A-1). That is how, I am seized of the matter.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present appeal in this context.
10. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since no offence is made out against the appellant-Idrish, so, the trial Judge has committed a legal mistake in lodging the complaint against him under Section 340 Cr.P.C., is neither tenable nor the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case Chajoo Ram Versus Radhey Shyam and another, AIR 1971 Supreme Court 1367, are at all applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein it was observed that the person filing sworn affidavit is not a witness within the meaning of Section 195 and before sanctioning prosecution for perjury, Court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. There can hardly be any dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but to me, the same would not come to rescue of the appellant in the present controversy.
11. As is evident from the record that, appellant-Idrish, while appearing as PW-17 has duly supported the prosecution version, as per his statement dated 12.11.2001(Annexure A-2). On the contrary, when Crl.Appeal No.761-SB of 2002 4 he was recalled for further cross-examination, he took the somersault and instead of supporting, has totally demolished the prosecution story in its entirety in his subsequent statement dated 15.03.2002(Annexure A-3). Prima facie, it stands proved on record that the appellant has given false and fabricated evidence and used the same known to be false during the course of criminal trial.
12. In this manner, the trial Judge has rightly so concluded and lodged the impugned complaint(Annexure A-1) against the appellant, which in substance is as under:-
"I have gone through the statement of Idrish PW17 dated 12.11.2001, wherein he supported the prosecution version and when he was recalled for further cross-examination on 15.03.2002, which was allowed by this court on the application dated 1.2.2002 moved on behalf of accused Nandu etc. by Sh.Shamvir Singh, Advocate as the same was not objected by Sh.Satbir Singh Public Prosecutor for the State, he resiled from his earlier statement made in the court. In view of the statement of Idrish PW17 dated 12.11.2001 and dated 15.3.2002, I am of the opinion that offence u/s 193 IPC appears to have been committed and it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into that offence for giving false evidence in the course of judicial proceedings in the above noted case intentionally knowing the same to be false. A report, therefore, is lodged with you as contemplated u/s 340 Cr.P.C. to inquire about the above mentioned offence."
13. Meaning thereby, the trial Judge has examined the matter in the right perspective and correctly initiated the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the appellant did not point out any ground, much less cogent, to interfere in the impugned complaint Crl.Appeal No.761-SB of 2002 5 (Annexure A-1), at this stage in this relevant connection. Such impugned order, to initiate complaint(Annexure A-1), containing the valid reasons, cannot be interfered with, unless and until the same is perverse or without jurisdiction. Since, no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, so, the impugned order initiating the complaint(Annexure A-1) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
14. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the impugned complaint, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed as such.
Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the impugned complaint, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present appeal only.
December 12, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE