Allahabad High Court
Maula Baksh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 15 July, 2022
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17458 of 2021 Applicant :- Maula Baksh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant and learned A.G.A. for State.
Perused the record.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging order dated 18.5.2019, whereby Court below has directed that Misc. Case under section 344 Cr.P.C. be registered against P.W.1 Aneeta, P.W.2 Brijmohan Dwivedi, P.W.3 Maula Baksh, P.W.4 Radhelal.
Record shows that Sessions Trial No. 89 of 2015 (State Vs. Pravendra) arising out of Case Crime No. 64 of 2013, under sections 363, 366, 376, 323 IPC was tried by Additional Session Judge, F.T.C. Mahoba. Aforesaid Sessions Trial came to be decided vide judgement and order dated 11.4.2019, passed by Additional Session Judge (FTC) Mahoba whereby accused was acquitted of the charges alleged against him by extending the benefit of doubt.
However, concerned Session Judge vide aforesaid order dated 11.4.2019 also came to the prima fecie conclusion that the prosecution witnesses of fact namely P.W.1 Aneeta, P.W.2 Brijmohan Dwivedi, P.W.3 Maula Baksh, P.W.4 Radhelal have given false evidence before the Court. Accordingly, concerned Sessions Judge directed that criminal case under section 344 Cr.P.C. be registered against them.
Learned counsel for applicant contends that no statement of P.W.3 was recorded by Investigating Officer under section 161 Cr.P.C. Therefore, applicant could not be contradicted by his own previous statement. On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that impugned order passed by Court below is manifestly illegal and same is liable to be quashed by this Court.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed this application. He, submits that the issue as to whether applicant has given false evidence before Court or not, is a question of prima facie satisfaction recorded by court concerned. In the present case Court has recorded its prima faice opinion. The opinion is subject to summary trial which is pending. In view of aforesaid that veracity of the satisfaction recorded by Court below, cannot be examined by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C. As such, no indulgence be granted by this Court.
When confronted with above, learned counsel for applicant could not over come the same.
Having heard Mr. Sanjay Tripathi, learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court does not find any good ground to entertain the present application.
As a result the application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.7.2022 Arshad