Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara, Judge.


    Whether approved for reporting?1 YES


For the petitioner:              Petitioner in person.



For the Respondent:              Mr. Nand Lal Thakur and Mr. Ashwani
                                 K. Sharma, Addl. Advocates General




Anoop Chitkara, Judge

Challenging the dismissal of the appeal filed under Section 341 Cr. P. C. by the Sessions Court, Una, upholding the dismissal of the application by Judicial Magistrate under Section 340 CrPC, the applicant, who is a practicing Advocate, has come up before this Court seeking prosecution of some of the prosecution witnesses for perjury.

...3...

7. Feeling aggrieved against such dismissal of application, the applicant .

filed a criminal appeal in the Sessions Court. Vide judgement dated September 5, 2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 2015, titled Dinesh Chander Sharma vs. State of H.P., the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P., upheld the impugned order passed by Judicial Magistrate, and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the dismissal of the Cr. Appeal filed under Section 341 CrPC, the applicant/accused has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC, seeking direction to conduct inquiry under Section 340 CrPC.

8. I have heard Shri Dinesh Chander Sharma, Advocate, who appeared in person, and Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma and Shri Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General for the respondent/State and waded through the entire record.

DISCUSSIONS AND REASONING

9. A bare perusal of the application filed by the accused under Section 340 CrPC reveals that there is no reproduction of a single sentence, which according to applicant amounted to perjury. Section 340 CrPC states that when an application is filed, and the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made only then the Court will proceed further. Thus, what the Court is to see the contents of the application, and not to ...4...

administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the .

interest of justice to make a complaint. ...

(b) In N. Natarajan v. B.K. Subba Rao, (2003) 2 SCC 76, Supreme Court holds,

8. ...It is well settled in criminal law that a complaint can be lodged by anyone who has become aware of a crime having been committed and thereby set the law into motion. In respect of offences adverted to in Section 193 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 there is a restriction that the same cannot be entertained unless a complaint is made by a court because the offence is stated to have been committed in relation to the proceedings in that court. Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is invoked to get over the bar imposed under Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 In ordinary crimes not adverted to under Section 195 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 if in respect of any offence, law can be set into motion by a citizen of this country, we fail to see how any citizen of this country cannot approach even under Section 340 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 For that matter, the wordings of Section 340 Cr.P.C. are significant. The Court will have to act in the interest of justice on a complaint or otherwise. Assuming that the complaint may have to be made at the instance of a party having an interest in the matter, still the court can take action in the matter otherwise than on a complaint, that is, when it has received information as to a crime having been committed covered by the said provision..."