Allahabad High Court
Parul Srivastava And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Of ... on 17 April, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1557 of 2023 Petitioner :- Parul Srivastava And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dev Prakash Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Dwijendra Mishra,Suresh Chandra Srivastava Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri D. S. Rana, learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents.
Short counter affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned first information report dated 13.04.2022 registered as Case Crime No. 192 of 2022, under Sections 34, 419, 420, 389, 506 I.P.C. Police Station Ghazipur, District Lucknow.
ii) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to arrest and harass the petitioners in pursuance of the aforesaid impugned F.I.R.
Learned A.G.A. has filed short counter affidavit, wherein, it has come out that investigation has been concluded and chargesheet against petitioner No.1- Parul Srivastava, has been filed in the court on 05.04.2023 and names of other accused persons have been deleted.
Sri Dwijendra Mishra, learned counsel for private respondent has press his application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against petitioner No.1- Parul Srivastava.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the reply to the said application and also a rejoinder affidavit, which are also taken on record.
This Court has considered the contents of paragraph- 4 of the application/affidavit filed in support of prayer made for initiating proceeding under Section 340 read with 195 Cr.P.C., which are as follows:
"That the petitioners in para 12 of the writ petition have made false, concocted and defamatory allegation against the father and the family members of the deponent and has filed a forged and fabricated document as being Annexure-7 page 70 through which the petitioners have tried to show that the father of the petitioner Sri Veer Bhadra Pandey has a criminal history to the extent of seven criminal cases lodged in police Station Colonelganj, District Gonda being case Crime Nos. (1) 128/87 under sections 457, 380 I.P.C. (2) 2148/90 under section 435 I.P.C. (3) 343 of 91 under section 4/10 Van Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, (4) 374/97 under Section 325, 323, 504 I.P.C. (5) 288/97 under Section 3(1) U.P.Gangaster Act, (6) 05/99 under Section 4/10 Van Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, (7) 390 of 02 under Section 4/10 Van Sanrakshan Adhiniyam. For ready reference the contents of the para- 12 of the writ petition is quoted below:-
That the respondent No. 4 as well as his family members are criminals the several cases/ F.I.R. have been lodged against him and they are gangsters, the details of criminal cases against Veerbhadra Pandey father of respondent No.4 have been found from police station Colonelganj, District Gonda in all cases the charge sheet has been filed against him."
It has further been submitted in paragraph 5 of the affidavit that father of the deponent Sri Veer Bhadra Pandey has no criminal history at all either at Police Station Colonelganj or at any other Police Station of the country and a false statement on oath has been made by the petitioner before this Court. Paragraph - 5 of the affidavit is also being quoted below:
"That the fact is that there is no criminal history against Sri Veer Bhadra Pandey, the father of the deponent either in the police station Colonelganj of any other police Station of the county and the father of the deponent is a respectable persons of the society and the petitioners have made false statement on oath before this Court by way of para - 12 of the writ petition and have filed forged, fabricated undated and unsigned document as Annexure- 7 page 70 to the writ petition using it as a genuine as evidence for influencing the decision of the Hon'ble Court and committing contempt which make the petitioners liable for penal action under sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 471 I.P.C. by initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C."
Similarly in paragraph 7 of the affidavit /application the following averments have been made:
"That from bare perusal of Annexure No. 7, page No. 70 of the writ petition seems that it is a forged document inasmuch as neither it has been signed by any authority not any date has been mentioned which shows that the said document is purely manufactred to be used by the petitioners to influence the decision of the Hon'ble Court in the instant writ petition which makes apparently clear case of initiation of proceeding against the petitioners under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195 Cr.P.C."
In the reply submitted to such application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the learned counsel for the petitioners, no specific reply has been given to the allegation/averments. Paragraph- 3 of the reply is being quoted herein below:
"That in reply to the contents of para- 4 to 7 of the affidavit filed in support of application under Section 340 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that SIM bearing Mobile No.7570962337 has been provided by respondent No.4 to the deponent for some time. SIM bearing Mobile No.7570962337 has been provided by respondent NO. 4 to the deponent- petitioner No.1 and it was misused by respondent No.4 and deponent- petitioner No.1 always use the SIM bearing Mobile No. 6386744384 and 9598968247. The annexure - 7 contained with writ petition was left by respondent No. 4 in the house of deponent- petitioner No.1. Moreover, this document has not acted in a piece of evidence at any stage."
Learned counsel for the petitioners states that since Annexure - 7 page 70 has not been filed as evidence in any court, proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with 195 Cr.P.C. cannot be taken.
However, this Court find that in writ jurisdiction the only way of filing evidence in the Court is through affidavit enclosing annexures. The deponent of the writ petition the petitioner No.1 has made a false statement in paragraph 12 of the writ petition and has supported the same by annexure -7 which is prima facie a forged document as it has not been signed by any authority.
Prima facie, this Court feels that any attempt by any petitioner to pollute the pure stream of law in this manner cannot be appreciated.
The matter is referred to the Magistrate concerned to initiate appropriate proceeding under Section 340 alongwith Section 195 Cr.P.C.
This writ petition is dismissed on this ground alone.
The relevant record is directed to be sealed by the Registry and forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate concerned forthwith.
Order Date :- 17.4.2023 Reena/-