Chandra Shekhar Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:12345

Court No. - 16

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2236 of 2008

Appellant :- Chandra Shekhar Tripathi Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Akhilesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶6

List has been revised.

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶8

The present appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant, namely-Chandra Shekhar Tripathi, against the order dated 28.08.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad in Crl. Misc. Case No.250 of 2008; Chandrashekhar vs. Gulabad Devi dismissing the application moved under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the appellant.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the appellant/deponent submits that the appellant/deponent alongwith other accused persons is being tried by the court below in Sessions Trial No.324 of 2007; State vs. Chandra Shekhar Tripathi and others, under Section 302, 452, 323 I.P.C., Police Station-Kotwali Ayodhya, DistrictFaizabad (now Ayodhya) and the said trial is still pending before the concerned court, the opposite party No.2 Smt. Gulaba Devi, the wife of late Sri Ram Narain Das is the complainant in the above noted case moved a transfer application under Section 408 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad on 12.08.2008 alongwith an affidavit making false and frivolous allegation against the appellant for transferring the Sessions Trial No.324 of 2007 pending before the learned Additional Sessions Court No.1 Faizabad stating therein that the appellant is not appearing for the last more than 25 dates and summoning order as well as non-bailable warrant had also been issued but the appellant/deponent was absconding.

¶10

Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that on the application dated 12.08.2008 of opposite party No.2, learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad transferred the aforesaid case bearing Sessions Trial No.324 of 2007 from Additional Sessions Judge Court No.1, Faizabad to Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6 Faizabad on the very same day i.e. on 12.08.2008 without

¶11

considering it proper to call for explanation from the court concerned or did not even go through the records before passing the order dated 12.08.2008.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that the appellant moved an application on 28.08.2008 before learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad praying therein to initiate proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the opposite party No.2 for giving false affidavit after due inquiry but learned Sessions Judge, Faizabad vide impugned order dated 28.08.2008 rejected the application of the appellant/deponent without proper application of mind and in a very illegal and arbitrary manner.

¶13

Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.08.2008, the appellant/deponent has preferred the present appeal.

¶14

Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent has opposed the contentions made on behalf of the appellant and submits that court below has rightly passed the impugned order after perusing the facts and enclosures filed with the application and found no ground to entertain the prayer made therein by the appellant/deponent, thus, he submits that no interference by this Court is required in the matter and the present appeal being devoid of merit and substance may be dismissed.

¶15

After considering the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and after perusal of the record, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the impugned order as the court below has rightly rejected the application of the appellant/deponent finding no force in the prayer made therein by the appellant/deponent and after taking overall view of the facts and circumstances.

¶16

So far as Section 340 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is jurisdiction of the court to file a complaint, if in preliminary inquiry, it is found that offence has been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in the court or documents produced or given in the evidence in the proceeding in the court has been fabricated and if the court does not exercise its right, then cognizance is barred u/s 195 (1)(b) Cr.P.C. From the allegations made in the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C., it is clear that forgery which has been alleged to be committed by the opposite party No.2 is not based on imagination/misappropriation rather she has accused the appellant/deponent on the basis of record of the court itself., thus, the court below has ample evidence to peruse before passing the impugned order. In the facts of the case, Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not attracted. Impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.

¶17

Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sachida Nand Singh Vs. State of Bihar, SCC 1998 (2) 493 as well as in Iqbal Singh Marwah Vs. Meenakshi Marwah 2005(4) SCC 370 has held that "the scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Cr P C is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis." .

¶18

Thus, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in judgments referred above, this Court does not find any illegality and infirmity in the impugned order, the appeal being devoid of merit and substance is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

In view thereof, the present appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶20

No order as to cost(s).

¶21

Lower court record, if any, be returned back to the court concerned.

¶22

Order Date :- 2.2.2024 Piyush/-

¶23

Digitally signed by :- PIYUSH YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Chandra Shekhar Tripathi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar Tripathi v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amita Kumar Sharma @ Lallu Vs State of U.P.

Ghunana Pandit @ Nirankar Narayan Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P.

Smt. Suman Thru. Her Husband Sri Om Prakash and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Samar Singh @ Babloo Singh and Another Vs State of U.P.

Chet Ram and ORS.2 Vs State of U.P.

Raju Balmiki Vs State of U.P.