Uttarakhand High Court
Deep Bhagat vs State Of Uttarakhand on 30 March, 2017
Author: U.C. Dhyani
Bench: U.C. Dhyani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 81 of 2012
Tilok Singh ............. Applicant
versus
State of Uttarakhand ............. Respondent
Mr. Sandeep Tandon and Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht, Advocates for the applicant.
Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Dy. Advocate General for the respondent State.
with Criminal Misc. Application (C-482) No. 825 of 2011 Deep Bhagat ............. Applicant versus State of Uttarakhand ............. Respondent Mr. Amish Tewari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Dy. Advocate General for the respondent State.
U.C. Dhyani, J. (oral) By means of application / petition no. 81 of 2012 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the impugned part of the judgment and order dated 13.12.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in S.T. no. 24 of 2010, State vs Bhagwat Singh & others, and consequential proceedings of criminal case no. 708 of 2011, under Section 194 IPC, pending in the court of C.J.M., Almora, as also the summoning order dated 16.12.2011 issued thereof.
2) By means of application / petition no. 825 of 2011 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to 2 quash the impugned part of the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in S.T. no. 25 of 2005, State vs Harish Chandra Sharma and consequential proceedings of criminal case no. 22 of 2010, under Section 344 Cr.P.C., pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Almora, as also the notice dated 22.10.2010 issued thereof.
3) The genesis of petition (C-482) no. 81 of 2012 is the following paragraph of the judgment and order dated 13.12.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge in S.T. no. 24 of 2010. The same reads as under:
"In the present case conduct of complainant Trilok Singh is too much blemish. Before S.D.M. Dr. Anil Kumar at Delhi, question put to him was that - 'Had son-in-law Bhagwat Singh and his family members made demand of dowry or had they informed you (complainant) in respect of the same'. Reply by the complainant was that - 'son-in- law said nothing, though mother-in-law Panna Devi used to provoke sometimes saying that other boys gets enough dowry, but our boy despite being in government service, received less dowry. Whether, the said statement is made in lighter vein or in actual, is not known. I have never heard of physical assault'. Further question was - "anything more". He replied - "No Sir". That was his statement on 25.08.2005 before S.D.M. Dehli Cantt. Dr. Anil Kumar. But in complaint, his version was totally different and that version was not supported by him in his evidence and his version was totally against the version put by him in his complaint. All these circumstances are showing that the purpose of complainant was something other and not the death of his daughter."
[emphasis supplied] 3
4) The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 13.12.2011, passed by learned Sessions Judge in S.T. no. 24 of 2010, is as follows:
"Chief Reader of this Court is directed to file a complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Almora under Section 194 of Indian Penal Code as ordered above within seven days of this judgment."
5) The genesis of petition no. 825 of 2011, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C is the summoning of applicant Deep Bhagat under Section 344 Cr.P.C., whereby the applicant has been directed to remain present before the Sessions Court, Almora on 10.01.2011, to file his objections, if any to controvert the allegation that he has adduced false evidence in the court in S.T. no. 25 of 2005, State vs Harish Sharma.
6) Operative portion of the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, passed by learned Sessions Judge in S.T. no. 25 of 2005, is as follows:
"Separate misc. record be opened and notice be issued to the witness Deep Bhagat s/o Ghananand, r/o Sadar Bazar, Ranikhet, District Almora to show cause as to why he should not be punished for adducing false evidence in the court?"
7) It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant Trilok Singh that the prosecution of the applicant is outcome of some misunderstanding. Applicant never gave false information intentionally, as is being alleged. Learned Sessions Court has taken a hyper technical view in the impugned part of the judgment impugned for initiating 4 aforesaid criminal proceedings against him. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made by applicant Trilok Singh were based on the instigation of his relatives while during the examination-in-chief, the applicant stated correct facts in the court and, therefore, did not support the prosecution story and was declared hostile. Thus, there was no occasion for the applicant to have given false information in the court.
8) It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant Deep Bhagat that no statement of the applicant was recorded in the court earlier. The applicant stated correct facts in the court during his examination as PW1 and he did not support the prosecution story and, therefore, was declared hostile. So, there is no occasion for him to submit false evidence in the court. Only two witnesses were examined in the trial and both of them were declared hostile. It is also contended that learned court below has not recorded any finding how the applicant is liable to adduce false evidence before the court in absence of any contradictory evidence on record.
9) It is, therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the applicants that they did not give false information intentionally or deliberately to extend undue benefit to any person. Notices were issued to the applicants and criminal case was registered against them wrongly.
10) Section 194 IPC reads as below:
"194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence. - whoever 5 gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital by the law for the time being in force in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
If innocent person be thereby convicted and executed. -and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described."
11) Section 344 Cr.P.C. lays down summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence. The same reads as under:
"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 willfully 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 6 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) On the basis of documents brought on record, it does not appear that the applicants herein have either intentionally given wrong information or intentionally deposed falsely to save the accused for the offence of which they were charged. There was no harm till the show cause notices were issued to the applicants, but once their replies were filed, the learned court, instead of proceeding further, ought to have discharged notices, keeping in mind that there was nothing intentional on the part of the applicants to save the accused for the offences they were charged.
13) Since the action of the applicants did not appear to be intentional, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the criminal proceedings initiated against them should be quashed in the interest of justice.
14) In view of the above, both the applications / petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed.
15) As a consequence thereof, the impugned part of the judgment and order dated 13.12.2011, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in S.T. no. 24 of 2010, State vs Bhagwat Singh & others and consequential proceedings of criminal case no. 708 of 2011, under Section 194 IPC, 7 pending in the court of C.J.M., Almora, as also the summoning order dated 16.12.2011, challenged by way of aforementioned application / petition no. 81 of 2012 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are hereby quashed.
16) Also, the impugned part of the judgment and order dated 20.12.2010, passed by Sessions Judge, Almora in S.T. no. 25 of 2005, State vs Harish Chandra Sharma and consequential proceedings of criminal case no. 22 of 2010, under Section 344 Cr.P.C., pending in the court of Sessions Judge, Almora, along with the notice dated 22.10.2010, challenged by way of aforementioned application / petition no. 825 of 2011 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., are hereby quashed.
(U.C. Dhyani, J.) [ Dt. March 30, 2017.
Negi 8 9 10