The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a judicial opinion on the expediency of justice and the safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecution under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Agarwal, J.

Heard Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Samit Gopal, learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for State of U.P.

2. This application under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.") has been filed by applicant-Ravinder Talwar with a prayer that proceedings of Criminal Complaint Case No. 3505 of 2000, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad through its Registrar General Vs. Ravinder Talwar and another, under Sections 193, 196, 205, 209, 466, 468 IPC, Police Station Cantt., District Allahabad, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad, be quashed. A further prayer has been made to quash order dated 24.06.2000 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "C.J.M.") in the above criminal complaint case.

3. Facts in brief, giving rise to the present application, are that a Writ Petition No. 282 of 1989 was filed in the name of Kashi Ram son of Sri Kabool Ram Sharma through Power of Attorney Holder Ravinder Talwar seeking a declaration that U.P. Excise (Amendment) Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as "Amendment Act, 1998") is ultravires. Further a mandamus was also prayed for refund of entire wholesale vending fee of foreign liquor under licence F.L.II. An affidavit in support of writ petition was sworn by one Sri Suresh Kumar Goel son of Sri Banarh Das, resident of 8/427, Kamoh Katera, Saharanpur being Pairokar of agent deputed by Principal.

4. Contesting writ petition, Excise Authorities filed reply wherein a copy of affidavit sworn by Kashi Ram himself was appended stating that he has not authorized anyone to file writ petition in the High Court.

5. Taking cognizance of this fact and observing that above affidavit shows that Power of Attorney Holder as well as deponent of affidavit, both, have played fraud with Court and presentation of writ petition amounts to filing of a false affidavit, a Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Ravi S. Dhavan, J. (as His Lordships then was) and Hon'ble B. Dikshit, J., vide order dated 22.07.1999 directed Registrar General of this Court to file a complaint against both the above persons, namely, Ravinder Talwar i.e. applicant and Suresh Kumar Goel. Both these persons were directed to answer charge before C.J.M. and findings and result of proceedings were directed to return to High Court for conclusion of proceedings and further action under Procedure of High Court for Uttar Pradesh (Act No.13 of 1869). Writ Petition, however, was dismissed by above judgement.

6. Pursuant to above direction, a complaint got registered as Complaint Case No. 3505 of 2000 by Registrar General vide complaint dated 24.06.2000, under Sections 193, 196, 205, 209, 466, 468 IPC. C.J.M. vide order dated 24.06.2000 summoned accused persons under aforesaid Sections. The above proceedings have been challenged in the present application.

7. It is contended that complaint in question is purported to have been filed under Section 195 Cr.P.C. which is not attracted; procedure and requirement of Section 340 Cr.P.C. is also not satisfied, inasmuch as, there is no finding recorded by Division Bench in its judgement dated 22.07.1999 that "it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry"; Court has not applied its mind regarding condition whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry into false affidavit given by accused applicant and in absence of such observation, Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not attracted. In support of his contention, learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance on a Supreme Court's decision in B.K. Gupta Vs. Damodar H. Bajaj and Others, (2001) 9 SCC 742.

8. A short question up for consideration is "whether complaint has been made in compliance of requirement of Section 340 read with 195 Cr.P.C. or not".

9. Section 340 Cr.P.C., reads as under:-

"340. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion t