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 proceedings if an appeal or revision has been preferred against the judgment or order in which the opinion has been expressed.

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 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 judgment 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 judgment 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 judgment 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 gi