JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---On 15-11-1977, respondent No. 2 (hereinafter referred as complainant) had filed a complaint against respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred as original accused) under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1976. The present applicant was a witness in the said case. The police had, after investigation into the said complaint, sent official report requesting for 'A' summary. The Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the same to S.D.P.O., Yavatmal for his recommendations upon which the police requested for 'C' summary. The Chief Judicial Magistrate did not accept the said report and took cognizance of the offence. The private complaint filed by complainant Anand Wasekar was registered as Criminal Case No. 630/1978 and the police case was registered as Criminal Case No. 1321 of 1978. Both the said cases were consolidated. After trial, the Magistrate ordered acquittal of the original accused Shankar Jadhav. The original accused thereafter filed an application under section 340 of Cri.P.C. on 9-1-1981 against complainant Anand Wasekar and witness Madhukar Sonavane and prayed that they be prosecuted for giving false evidence. Learned Magistrate vide order dated 17-2-1982 dismissed the said application. Thereafter the original accused Shankar Jadhav filed a Miscellaneous Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1982 against the said order of the learned Magistrate before the Court of Session under section 341 of Cri.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge Yavatmal vide judgment dated 29-11-1982 allowed the appeal and directed that the complaint be filed in pursuance of which complaint under section 191 read with sections 193 and 211 of I.P.C. was filed before the J.M.F.C., Yavatmal on 3-2-1983 which complaint was registered as Criminal Case No. 8 of 1983. The Chief Judicial Magistrate framed charge on 3-2-1993. On 8-3-1995, the witness Madhukar Sonavane filed an application for dismissal of the complaint which was rejected by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 15-2-1996. Against this order, Criminal Revision Application No. 33 of 1996 was filed which was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Yavatmal. This is how the applicant witness Madhukar Sonavane has approached this Court for quashing Criminal Case No. 8 of 1983 as also the charge framed therein and the order dated 15-2-1996 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate as also the order dated 20th October, 1997 passed by learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision Application No. 33 of 1996.

2. Initially the original accused Shankar Jadhav who had filed proceedings under section 340 of Cri.P.C. as a result of which further proceedings started and the orders sought to be impugned were passed was not even made party in this revision. By order dated 4th September, 2001, the present applicant was allowed to join the said Shankar Jadhav as party/ respondent No. 3. The said respondent No. 3, namely, the original accused was served, but no one appeared on his behalf.

3. Learned Advocate on behalf of the present applicant/witness argued before me that no notice in respect of the proceedings under section 340 of Cri.P.C. was issued either by the Magistrate or by the Sessions Court and without hearing the applicant, the learned Sessions Judge had ordered the filing of the complaint under sections 191, 193 and 211 of I.P.C. He also urged before me that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain complaint at the instance of a private party since the same has been barred under section 195(1)(b) of Cri.P.C. He also urged that the proceedings are pending for almost two decades and as such the same be quashed. He placed reliance on a number of authorities to which I shall make reference at a later stage. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 namely the original complainant also prays for quashing of the proceedings.

4. Learned A.P.P. urged before me that the notice under section 340(1) of Cri.P.C. to the affected party is mandatory. Section 340 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document