Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: criminal procedure code 340 in Sunder Lal Maurya vs Krishnendu Gupta, Mukhya Abhiyanta ... on 23 April, 2024Matching Fragments
All the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be listed separately for hearing in the month of January, 2017, as, they constitute separate proceedings."
In terms of the directions so issued, the application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been registered as Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013 and is listed today before this Court. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in the matter.
I have heard petitioner in person and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri V.K. Dubey for the respondents.
It is stated that counsel was apprised of subsequent developments in the matter so as to bring such materials on record and that the statement made by the counsel that academy has been purchased although was not entirely correct as merely management has been taken over but for such reasons proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not liable to be initiated.
Having heard the parties it appears that the order passed by this Court on 31.3.2008 merely records statement of counsel so as to enable him file an affidavit bringing on record such facts. The records do reflect that an agreement was entered into between Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy and Canadian company for taking over management. Even if the factum disclosed before the court that the academy has been purchased is incorrect, yet, in my opinion it would not give rise to a cause to initiate proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent has merely made a statement so as to enable him to file an affidavit before the court in that regard. There is nothing on record to show that any false statement was made on affidavit before the court. It is possible that there may have been lack of communication and inadvertent omission with regard to taking over of management was construed as purchase of academy, but that seems unintentional in the facts and circumstances. Necessary ingredients to invoke jurisdiction under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted.
All the applications filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are ordered to be listed separately for hearing in the month of January, 2017, as, they constitute separate proceedings."
In terms of the directions so issued, the application filed under section 340 Cr.P.C. has been registered as Civil Misc. Application No.82666 of 2013 and is listed today before this Court. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in the matter.
I have heard petitioner in person and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri V.K. Dubey for the respondents.
It is stated that counsel was apprised of subsequent developments in the matter so as to bring such materials on record and that the statement made by the counsel that academy has been purchased although was not entirely correct as merely management has been taken over but for such reasons proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not liable to be initiated.
Having heard the parties it appears that the order passed by this Court on 31.3.2008 merely records statement of counsel so as to enable him file an affidavit bringing on record such facts. The records do reflect that an agreement was entered into between Indira Gandhi Rashtriya Uran Academy and Canadian company for taking over management. Even if the factum disclosed before the court that the academy has been purchased is incorrect, yet, in my opinion it would not give rise to a cause to initiate proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the respondent has merely made a statement so as to enable him to file an affidavit before the court in that regard. There is nothing on record to show that any false statement was made on affidavit before the court. It is possible that there may have been lack of communication and inadvertent omission with regard to taking over of management was construed as purchase of academy, but that seems unintentional in the facts and circumstances. Necessary ingredients to invoke jurisdiction under section 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted.