Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that respondent filed an application under Section 340 CrPC seeking the prosecution of the petitioner for suppressing facts in her criminal complaint. On 01.08.2019 when the petitioner‟s complaint was listed for recording the statement of witnesses in pre-summoning evidence, the counsel for the respondent sought to make arguments on maintainability of the application u/s. 340 CrPC and sought another date to complete the arguments. He also sought that the pre- summoning evidence in the main matter cannot be discontinued only because the proposed accused has filed a Section 340 application, whose maintainability is still being argued. Accordingly, the Ld. MM posted the case for pre-summoning evidence on 16.08.2019. Accordingly, on 05.08.2019, two complaint witnesses were examined in pre-summoning evidence. On 16.08.2019, while the case was listed for arguments on summoning, the counsel for the respondent moved an application seeking "necessary order and direction for dismissal of complaint on the ground of fraud on court". The Ld. MM listed the application for consideration on 03.09.2019 and on the same day, the counsel for the petitioner concluded arguments on summoning including on the aspect of inquiry under Section 202 of the CrPC, pre-summoning evidence was closed and the Ld.MM listed the main case for clarifications/ appropriate orders on 07.09.2019 at 4 PM.

11. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that on 23.08.2019, the application filed by the respondent under Section 340 CrPC was adjourned for 03.09.2019 and on 03.09.2019, the applications filed by the respondent under Section 340 CrPC and application for dismissal of complaint was adjourned for 11.09.2019 owing to the Ld.MM being on leave. On 07.09.2019, the main complaint case of petitioner was adjourned for 03.10.2019 owing to the Ld. MM being on leave. On 11.09.2019, the applications filed by the respondent under Section 340 CrPC and application for dismissal of complaint was adjourned for 17.09.2019 owing to the Ld.MM being on leave. On 17.09.2019 also the applications filed by the respondent under Section 340 CrPC and application for dismissal of complaint was adjourned for 25.09.2019 owing to the Ld.MM being on leave.

14. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that it is settled law that prior to issuance of summons, a prospective accused has no right to participate in the proceedings and the law actually bars the Magistrate from allowing such participation. He further submitted that Ld. ASJ erred in staying the proceedings on the ground that prospective accused has not been heard. It is settled law that Chapter XVI of the CrPC does not at all allow for the participation of the accused and, therefore, the participation of the accused through an application under Section 340 CrPC at this stage would defeat the purpose of Chapter XVI of the CrPC. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel that it is settled law that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to hear the accused at the pre-summoning stage or allow for his or her participation. Therefore, an order to the contrary by the Magistrate would have been an illegal order. It is further submitted by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that it is established law that the accused has no "right of hearing" before the issuance of process against him and an application under Section 340 CrPC filed by the accused before the issuance of summons would not be maintainable and application under Section 340 CrPC must be considered at the conclusion of a trial and cannot stall proceedings of a trial. He further submitted that applications under Section 340 CrPC should be acted on sparingly and should not be allowed to be used as tools of vendetta or revenge.

32. Perusal of the above ordersheets reveals that Ld. Trial Court has yet to decide the application moved on behalf of the prospective accused under Section 340 CrPC as well as on the application filed on behalf of the prospective accused seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground of fraud on the court.

33. Perusal of the order dated 01.08.2019 of the Ld. MM further reveals that prospective accused has filed an application under Section 340 CrPC. Part detailed arguments on the point of maintainability were heard by the Ld. MM. Further arguments were deferred at the request of Ld. Counsel for the applicant himself. Ld. MM, thereafter, has held that proceedings in the complaint case cannot be stalled because of filing of application under Section 340 CrPC. In the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Ld. MM dated 01.08.2019 on the application under Section 340 CrPC is an interlocutory order as it does not decide anything finally.