Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
Bharatendu Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Om Prakash Shukla, J.
1. Heard Shri Shivendra S Singh Rathore, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the for the State-respondents and perused the material placed on record.
2. The present application has been filed praying for setting-aside the final judgment/order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 66/2023 (Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev Krishna & 2 others) filed under section 341 of the Cr. P.C by the applicant as well as the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No.1041/2023 (Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev Krishna & 2 others) filed under section 340 of the Cr. P.C by the applicant.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 prepared questionnaires under General Rules (Criminal), 1977 for declaration of a fact was false and they knew that the said questionaires were false on the date when the same was obtained under the seal and signature of the concerned Court. According to him, the learned CJM, Lucknow, while exercising jurisdiction under section 340 Cr.P.C has committed material irregularity in form
The court ruled that initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C requires clear evidence of falsehood that impacts judicial proceedings, not mere inaccuracies.
Action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood impacting justice, and mere repetition of allegations is insufficient for prosecution.
Judicial discretion under Section 340 of the CrPC requires significant evidence of falsehood and must not serve personal grievances, but rather ensure expedience in justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. to be made out, the complaint must falsely charge a person with having committed an offence, with the....
(1) Offences referred to under Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. will get attracted only with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.(2) In a case....
Cognizance for contempt must be taken by the court where original proceedings are pending; failure to do so violates the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Repeated filing of similar petitions on the same cause of action, which have already been dismissed, constitutes an abuse of the court process and may result in costs being imposed on the petitioner.
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
