Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 344 crpc in Jugraj Singh vs State Of Punjab on 6 February, 2014Matching Fragments
The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of order dated 5.4.2012 at Annexure P1 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur to the extent that directions have been issued for notice to be issued to the petitioner as also another under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to show cause as to why they be not punished for giving false evidence in the Court. Further challenge is to the notice under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 1.10.2013 at Annexure P4 that has been issued in pursuance to the impugned order dated 5.4.2012, Annexure P1.
4. Learned counsel has not been able to rebut the afore- noticed factual position as has been noticed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in the impugned order dated 5.4.2012. The impugned order, as such, does not suffer from any perversity.
5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34 while examining the exercise of power under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure had observed as under:
7. I am of the considered view that the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in the light of order dated 5.4.2012 has rightfully initiated proceedings against the petitioner under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while forming an opinion that he has knowingly and wilfully given false evidence with the intention that such evidence would be used in the criminal proceedings. There is no patent infirmity in such order and as such, there would be no scope for interference in the same.