1. Heard Sri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A.-I for the State-opposite party.
2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking to quash the entire criminal proceedings of Case No. 17 of 2020 (State of U.P. vs. Shyamlal and another) under Section 344 Cr.P.C., pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Devband, District- Saharanpur as well as the notice dated 3.11.2020, under the said proceedings.
3. Facts of the case are that pursuant to a First Information Report dated 23.9.2014, lodged by the son of the applicants under Sections 452, 307, 504, 506 IPC, registered as Case Crime No. 727 of 2014, P.S.- Devband, District- Saharanpur, a charge sheet was submitted and thereafter, the trial was initiated.
4. The sessions trial, being Sessions Trial No. 529 of 2015 was decided in terms of an order dated 8.10.2020 whereunder, the accused Dileep was acquitted. The Court of Session, at the time of delivery of the judgement, expressed an opinion to the effect that the main witnesses in the case i.e. P.W. 2- Shyam Lal (applicant no. 2 herein) and P.W. 3- Smt. Indra Gandhi (applicant no. 1 herein) had wilfully given false evidence, and accordingly, proceedings under Section 344 Cr.P.C. were directed to be initiated against them.
5. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a notice dated 3.11.2020 has been issued to the applicants directing them to show cause. It is at this stage that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed.
6. Counsel for the applicants has sought to contend that the aforesaid notice dated 3.11.2020, which according to him, is a summoning order, has been issued on a printed proforma, without application of mind and accordingly, the proceedings initiated pursuant thereto, cannot be sustained.
7. Learned counsel for the applicants also asserts that against the aforesaid judgement dated 8.10.2020, passed by the Court of Session, an appeal against acquittal, has been filed being Criminal Appeal U/S 372 Cr.P.C. Defective No. - 118 of 2020, dated 11.8.2020, before this Court, which is stated to be pending.
8. Per contra, Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A.-I appearing for the State-opposite party no. 1 submits that the notice dated 3.11.2020 issued to the applicants in respect of the opinion expressed by the Court of Session in its judgement dated 8.10.2020, is simply a notice for showing cause and cannot be said to be a summoning order. He submits that no detailed reasons are required to be stated therein and the contention of the counsel for the applicants that it has been issued on a printed proforma, is totally without basis.
9. It is further submitted that in case the applicants have filed an appeal against the judgement dated 8.10.2020 passed in the sessions trial and if the aforesaid appeal is in order, it would be open to the applicants to apprise the court below of the said fact and make a prayer for staying the proceedings of the trial as per sub-section (4) of Section 344 Cr.P.C.
10. In order to appreciate the rival contentions, the relevant statutory provisions may be adverted to.
11. The provisions as to offences affecting the administration of justice are given under Chapter XXVII of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Section 344 provides a summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence. The provisions under Section 344 Cr.P.C., are as follows :-
"344. Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence.-(1) If, at the time of delivery of any judgment or final order disposing of any judicial proceeding, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily for giving or fabricating, as the case may be, false evidence, take cognizance of the offence and may, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence, try such offender summarily and sentence him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
(2) In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials.
(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to make a complaint under section 340 for the offence, where it does not choose to proceed under this section.
(4) Where, after any action is initiated under sub- section (1), it is made to appear to the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class that an appeal or an application for revision has been preferred or filed against the judgment or order in which the opinion referred to in that sub- section has been expressed, it or he shall stay further proceedings of the trial until the disposal of the appeal or the application for revision, as the case may be, and thereupon the further proceedings of the trial shall abide by the results of the appeal or application for revision."
12. The provisions contained under Section 344 Cr.P.C. provide a summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence in a case, if the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class, at the time of delivery of any judgement or final order disposing of any judicial proceeding, expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding.
13. The section provides a summary procedure, which empowers the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class to try such offenders summarily, in case it is satisfied that the same is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice. It is provided that before proceeding, the offender is to be provided a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence. In terms of sub-section (2), the Court is enjoined to follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials.
14. Under Section 344 Cr.P.C., the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class is empowered to try cases of perjury committed before him and punish the offenders summarily. The provision is of a limited scope, being confined to obvious cases of perjury and authorizing a small punishment. The exercise of powers under the section is discretionary. The section authorizes the court to exercise the power only at the time of delivery of the judgement or final order and not earlier. Before trying the offender, the Court is required to give him reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such an offence.
15. The provisions contained under sub-section (4) of Section 344 provide that where, after any action is initiated under sub-section (1), it is made to appear to the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class that an appeal or an application for revision has been preferred or filed against the judgement or order in which the opinion referred to in that sub-section has been expressed, it or he shall stay further proceedings of the trial until the disposal of the appeal or the application for revision, as the case may be, and thereupon the further proceedings of the trial shall abide by the results of the appeal or application for revision.
16. Sub-section (4) of Section 344 gives the Court power to stop further proceedings of any summary trial initiated under the Section, if it is brought to its notice that an appeal or a revision application has been preferred against the judgement or order in the main proceedings. It would also follow that pending the disposal of the appeal or revision, if any sentence has been imposed in sub-section (1), the same would not be executed.
17. The order dated 3.11.2020 has been issued for the purpose of giving the applicants an opportunity of showing cause pursuant to the opinion expressed by the Court of Session in its judgement dated 8.10.2020. The object of the order being to put the applicants to notice by providing them a reasonable opportunity of showing cause pursuant to the opinion already expressed in the judgement dated 8.10.2020, the Court was not required to give elaborate reasons for its satisfaction for proceeding summarily to try the witnesses for giving false evidence. The purpose is only to notify the persons concerned to submit their response.
18. At this stage, the Court of Session or the Magistrate is only required to be satisfied that there is sufficient ground to proceed to try the witnesses summarily and not that there is sufficient ground to punish them. The order dated 3.11.2020, therefore, cannot be faulted with for the reason that the same does not contain elaborate or detailed reasons.
19. In the event an appeal has been preferred against the judgement dated 8.10.2020 passed in the sessions trial, as is sought to be contended, and if the appeal is in order, it would be open to the applicants herein to invoke the provisions contained under sub-section (4) of Section 344 Cr.P.C. and move an appropriate application before the court concerned in response to the notice dated 3.11.2020.
20. Counsel for the applicants has not disputed the aforestated legal position, and makes a prayer to withdraw the present application stating that he would file an appropriate application/response to the notice dated 3.11.2020 issued by the court below pursuant to the order dated 8.10.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 529 of 2015.
21. The application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 22.1.2021 Shalini (Dr. Y.K.Srivastava,J.)