IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA Criminal Misc. Application No.1337 of 2013

12th August, 2025

Smt. Reena Panwar -- Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and Another --Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. L. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicants.

Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned DAG along with Mr. Devendra Singh,

learned AGA for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Misc. Application has been

filed by the applicant for quashing/expunging the impugned direction of issuing/ serving a notice under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. upon the applicant vide judgment and order dated 13.11.2013 in S.T. No.29 of 2013, Sate of Uttarakhand and Dinesh Lal and

another.

2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that an FIR was lodged by one Smt. Prabha Ratruri, member of District Child Welfare Committee, Tehri Garhwal at Police Station, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal on 14.08.2013 with the allegation that the accused Dinesh Lal, resident of Village Pata Patti Sarjyula, Tehri Garhwal committed rape with her

daughter (victim). After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused Dinesh Lal and Khushi Ram to face the trial for the offence under Sections 376 and 506 IPC, thereafter charges were framed by the trial court under Sections 376 & 506 IPC.

3. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused and directed to issue notice under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. upon the present applicant. Paragraph 28 of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, which is impugned in this criminal misc.

application is reproduced below:-

“25. The officer is government officer bound to protect the interest of the child and Smt. Reena Panwar stated that she has not unfolded her identity to her is nothing but totally false and she has deliberately concealed the fact from the court to misguide the court and for the said concealment of fact a notice U/s 340 Cr.P.C. be served upon Smt. Reena Panwar why she should not be dealt with according to section 340 Cr.P.C.”

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant being a District Program Coordinator, Mahila Samakhya, New Tehri and, on information, helped the Child Welfare Committee, as the matter was very serious and related to a girl child. He would further submit that the applicant did not give any fabricated and false evidence before the Court, which would invoke the provisions of Section

340 of Cr.P.C. against her; that, the ground mentioned in the judgment for issuing notice to the applicant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge is that she did not unfold the identity of the phone number and the person, who gave an information regarding the victim. He would further submit that since the matter was very sensitive and the identity of the person and phone number have no relevance with the trial; that, the statement of the applicant was corroborated by the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C; that, the applicant was corroborated by the statement of the victim and from the statement of the applicant and the statement of the victim, it is apparently clear that the applicant have not given any false statement and the ingredients of Section 340 Cr.P.C., are not fulfilled and also she has not withheld any information with a deliberate intention to hamper the trial. The non-discloser of the phone number and name of the person, who informed the applicant about the incident, was not relative because the victim herself in her statement has stated about authenticity and the veracity of the incident.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.S. Nandiesha Reddy vs. Kavitha Mahesh, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 321, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held tha