Allowed

Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC28 Nov 2018A482/11321/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought quashing of criminal proceedings initiated over false affidavit in civil suit. Court held offence not made out as notice was served and false affidavit question lies with civil court, allowing the application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.03.2017 set aside and proceedings in aforementioned complaint case quashed.

Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh Vs State of U.P. and… — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 15

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11321 of 2017

¶3

Applicant :- Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Inteshwar Nath Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite party and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against judgment and order dated 10.03.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 258 of 2015 (Rajendra Singh Yadav vs. Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh), allowing the revision against the order dated 27.06.2015 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 5, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 382 of 2015 (Rajendra Singh Yadav vs. Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh) under Sections 193, 199, 499, 500 I.P.C. Vide order dated 27.06.2015, the complaint of opposite party no. 2 Rajendra Singh was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Learned Magistrate held that complaint is barred by provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C.

¶7

As per version of complaint, Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh has filed a Civil Case No. 1096 of 2014 against complainant Rajendra Singh Yadav and his wife in the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Mainpuri with false allegation intending to harm the reputation of the complainant. In this civil case false affidavit has been filed by opposite party no. 2 Rajendra Singh Yadav. Notice was issued to the complainant. In this case notice was read by Tejveer Singh on 01.12.2014 at residence of complainant at Meerut as complainant was not able to read the notice.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant contended that no offence is made out against the applicant as civil suit was pending between the parties in Civil Court, Mainpuri. Accordingly pecuniary jurisdiction to take cognizance lies with District Court, Mainpuri. Learned counsel for the applicant further contended that for the offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C., congnizance can only be taken on the basis of the complaint filed by the

¶9

court concerned in which false evidence was produced.

¶10

Learned counsel for opposite party contended that from perusal of complaint, offence under Section 500 I.P.C is made out. There is no bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. to file complaint under Section 500 I.P.C. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the order dated 10.03.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Meerut. Learned Magistrate has not considered whether offence under Section 500 I.P.C. is made out against accused-applicant or not.

¶11

From perusal of material brought on record, it appears that notice has been served on complainant by the court. Accordingly, it cannot be said that accused-applicant has made or published any imputation against the complainant to harm his reputation. As such, offence under Section 500 I.P.C. is not made out against accusedapplicant Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh.

¶12

As per complaint, false affidavit has been filed in the civil court. The fact whether allegation made in the affidavit is false or not, is to be decided by the civil court. If the civil court comes to the conclusion that accused-applicant has filed false affidavit, then as per provision of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the Court may file a complaint against such person who files false affidavit. Learned revisional court has passed the impugned order without considering all these facts, which are liable to be set aside.

¶13

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.03.2017 passed by revisional court/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2, Meerut is hereby set aside and the proceedings of aforementioned complaint case is quashed.

¶14

In the result, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands allowed .

¶15

Order Date :- 28.11.2018 VG..

Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yadunath Singh @ Jadunath Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Singh Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Mithlesh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Smt. Meena Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mahmood and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajneesh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhupendra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another