Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar vs Pardeep Kumar on 13 May, 2013
Crl. Misc. No.M-26061 of 2012 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-26061 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision : May 13th, 2013
Surinder Kumar
.... Petitioner
Versus
Pardeep Kumar
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. D.S. Malwai, Advocate,
for the respondent.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Surinder Kumar, the petitioner has brought this petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the orders dated 16.4.2007 [Annexure P9] passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar and dated 12.04.2012 [Annexure P13] passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge [Adhoc], Fast Track Court, Amritsar.
In a complaint case brought by Pardeep Kumar against the petitioner, Surinder Kumar and one Rakesh Kumar for an offence punishable under sections 392, 506 read with section 34 IPC, the petitioner-accused filed an application [Annexure P3] under section 193 IPC read with section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against Pardeep Kumar. It has been alleged in the application that while Crl. Misc. No.M-26061 of 2012 2 ..
appearing in the witness box, Pardeep Kumar has committed perjury in his cross-examination. His application has been dismissed vide order dated 16.4.2007 [Annexure P9] by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Amritsar. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against that order has been disposed of by learned Additional Sessions Judge [Adhoc] Fast Track Court, Amritsar vide order dated 12.4.2012 [Annexure P13]. Needless to repeat that the appeal of the petitioner, Surinder Kumar has been dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this court to a judgment of this court passed in Criminal Misc. Appeal No. 523-MA of 2006 dated 1.11.2006 [Annexure P2]. According to him, in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, this court has observed that the evidence of the complainant has been unreliable and untrustworthy. According to him, this finding alone is sufficient to satisfy the requirements of section 340 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has then drawn my attention to the statement of Pardeep Kumar as well as the application, reply and the orders passed on the application to submit that the court concerned should have proceeded in the matter and now, this court should direct the court concerned to lodge a complaint in writing about the offence.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that this petition is barred under section 341 (2) Cr.P.C. According to him, even otherwise, it is not expedient to make a complaint in this matter because the statement of Pardeep Kumar is only shown to be containing discrepancies and contradictory evidence which does not call upon the court to make a complaint against him in writing as provided Crl. Misc. No.M-26061 of 2012 3 ..
under section 340 Cr.P.C.
Section 341 Cr.P.C. deals with appeal against the order made under section 340 Cr.P.C. Sub-section (2) of section 341 Cr.P.C. lays down that an order under this section and subject to any such order, an order under section 340, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision. It, therefore, lays down that against the order passed in appeal under the provisions of section 341 Cr.P.C., no revision would lie. However, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that this is not a revision before this court, but a petition under the provisions of section 482 Cr.P.C.
When the legislature has specifically barred a revision against an order passed in appeal under the provisions of section 341 Cr.P.C., filing of a petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is only a method of challenging the judgment in appeal by circumventing the express provisions of section 341 (2) Cr.P.C. Unless and until the petitioner points out an eventuality in which an order is necessary to give effect to any order made under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. Therefore, the petition under section 482 Cr.P.C., in such a situation, can only be held maintainable if an order is required to give effect to any order under the Cr.P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
What is there in the statement of Pardeep Kumar has been carefully examined by the courts below and they have specifically found that there is no deliberate falsehood on the part of Pardeep Kumar on the Crl. Misc. No.M-26061 of 2012 4 ..
basis of which a complaint could be made under the provisions of section 340 Cr.P.C. The complainant had denied certain facts which were admitted by another witness. He had denied there being any litigation and it was found that his signatures were there on the order sheet of that case. The courts below have observed that he appeared in the court with his ailing father and signed the order sheet although, he was proceeded ex-parte in that case. The other portions of the statement of Pardeep Kumar, which were claimed to be false, were also noticed by the courts below and they have rightly reached the conclusion that at the most, they amount to an inaccurate or contradictory statement. Holding that the portions of the statements where the complainant was said to have committed perjury were neither relevant for the decision of the matter nor any benefit was arising to him on account of the same, it has been held that this was not a case of deliberate falsehood. The courts below have found that as the proceedings for perjury cannot be initiated on the mere ground of surmises or suspicion, the application and the appeal have been dismissed.
I find no ground to differ from the findings of the courts below in the matter in hand. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE
May 13th, 2013
som