JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. Satya Prakash Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. Perused the record.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by applicant to quash as well as to stay the effect and operation of the entire proceedings of Criminal Misc. Case No.1 of 2023 (State of U.P. Vs. Vijay Singh and others) along with cognizance cognizance order dated 12.01.2023 and notice dated 18.5.2023 arising out of judgement and order dated 03.11.2022 having S.T. No.38/2018 (State vs. Narayandas Kushwaha and another), under Section 344 Cr.P.C., Police Station Nadigaon, District Jalaun, peding before the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Jalaun at Orai.

3. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant is government teacher posted in a Primary School. The father of the applicant namely Durga Prasad lodged a first information report against Narayan Das Kushwaha, Suratan Singh and Lakhan Singh under section 306 IPC and 3(2) (V) SC/ST Act, Police Station Nadigaon, District Jalaun on 20.10.2018. Applicant is the writer of the tahrir spoken by his father and villagers.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that applicant was informed through mobile phone that his mother committed suicide infront of the house of Narayan Das Kushwaha in the night. It is also submitted that the charge sheet in the matter was submitted and statements were recorded by the concerned investigating officer. It is also submitted that the court after examining the entire facts of the case did not found the accused guilty and the accused were exonerated. It is further submitted that the applicant has been alleged of providing false evidence to the court and has been issued a show cause notice under section 344 Cr.P.C. Submission is that the applicant is merely a formal witness of the incident. He was neither present on the spot on the date and place of occurrence nor he is an eye witness of the alleged incident. Submission is that the applicant has only written a tahrir that was spoken by his father Durga Prasad and villagers. Contention is that if the proceedings against the applicant are allowed to go on it will result in shear abuse of process of law.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant in order to demonstrate the truthfulness upon his submissions has placed reliance upon following judgements :-

(i) Lalit Kumar Sharma and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. 2009 LawSuit(All) 2058

(ii) Sanjay Baburao Gitte Vs. State of Maharashtra 2017 LawSuit(Bom) 2798

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the submissions made by the counsel for the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2008] 10 S.C.R. 869 has laid down the guidelines regarding summoning of accused under section 344 Cr.P.C. :

“2.1. The purpose of enacting Section 344, Cr.P.C. appears to be further arm the Court with a weapon to deal with more flagrant cases and not to take away the weapon already in its possession. The object of the legislature underlying enactment of the provision is that the evil of perjury and fabrication of evidence has to be eradicated and can be better achieved now as it is open to the courts to take recourse to Section 340(1) in cases in which they are failed to take action under Section 344 Cr.P.C”

2.2. For exercising the powers under s.344/ the Code the Court at the time of delivery of judgment or final order must at the first instance express an opinion to the effect that the witness before it has either intentionally given false evidence or fabricated such evidence. The second condition is that the Court must come to the conclusion that in the interests of justice the witness concerned should be punished summarily by it for the offence which appears to have been committed by the witness. And the third condition is that before commencing the summary trial for punishment the witness must be given reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he sh