Back
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
Indra Gandhi – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
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 judgment, expressed an opinion to the effect that the main witnesses in the case i.e. P.W. 2Shyam Lal (applicant no. 2 herein) and P.W. 3 Smt. Indra Gandhi (applicant no. 1 herein) had wilf
The main legal point established is the discretion of the Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class to try offenders summarily under Section 344 Cr.P.C., and the provision for staying further....
The court emphasized the necessity of following established procedures in trials for perjury, ruling that failure to do so results in an unfair conviction.
The court ruled that mere inconsistencies in testimony do not constitute perjury under Section 344 Cr.P.C. unless there is evidence of wilful intent to give false evidence.
The need for consistency in the application of legal provisions and the requirement to follow the appropriate procedure as contemplated under Sec. 195(1)(b)(i) of IPC and to decide whether to proceed....
Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C. provides No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both inclusive) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The court upheld the trial court's authority under Section 344 Cr.P.C. to address perjury, requiring a clear opinion of intentional falsehood before action is taken.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
