Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL
Sufia – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under section 340 cr.p.c. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. procedures and definitions of courts in relation to false evidence. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. maintainability of application and necessary actions by consolidation authorities. (Para 9) |
| 4. expedited decisions required for lingering cases. (Para 10) |
JUDGMENT :
ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Abhishek Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application has been filed for the following relief:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District Azamgarh to conclude and decide the Misc. Case No.5 of 2023 [Sufia Vs Mohd. Wamik) under Section 340(2) of Cr. P.C., as well as direct the Consolidation Officer Phoolpur, District Azamgarh to conclude and decide the Misc. Case of 2019 (Sufia Vs Mohd. Wamik) under Section 340 of Cr. P.C., pending before them for a long time, within the shortest period of time to be stipulated by the Hon'ble Court to avoid all inconvenience to the Applicant in the interest of justice."
3. Learned AGA has ra
Application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is maintainable before consolidation authorities as judicial proceedings cover such matters.
The Settlement Officer Consolidation is deemed a 'court' for the purpose of S.195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., affecting the jurisdiction of lower courts to entertain related complaints.
The jurisdiction of consolidation authorities under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, post-notification under Section 52(1) is ambiguous and requires clarification by a larger bench.
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.
The Deputy Charity Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. as it is not classified as a court under the Trust Act.
Merely repeating allegations from an FIR as a defense does not constitute false evidence under Section 340 Cr.P.C., and proceedings for perjury require clear and convincing evidence of intentional de....
The High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of consolidation authorities unless jurisdictional errors or manifestly perverse decisions are identified.
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.
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
