Allowed

Gajendra S/O Govindrao Waikar v. Laxmi W/O Gajendra Waikar

Bombay HC20 Mar 2023WP/477/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This CWP challenges an order rejecting an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for giving false evidence. The High Court held that the withdrawal of the underlying domestic violence proceedings does not bar the Magistrate from independently inquiring into and deciding the false evidence application.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 13.11.2021 was set aside. The Magistrate was directed to decide Exh. 19 in accordance with law.

Gajendra S/O Govindrao Waikar Vs Laxmi W/O… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

1 3.wp.477.2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶3

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.477 OF 2022

¶4

Gajendra S/o. Govindrao Waikar .VS.

¶5

Laxmi W/o. Gajendra Waikar

¶6

_______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶7

Petitioner in-person Mr A. G. Hunge, Advocate for respondent

¶8

CORAM : G.A. SANAP, J. DATE : MARCH 20, 2023.

¶9

Heard the petitioner in-person and the learned Advocate for the respondent.

¶10

The order impugned in this petition is dated 13.11.2021, whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagpur filed/rejected the application at Exh. 19 made by the petitioner under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (For short ‘Cr.P.C.) read with other sections of the Cr.P.C. and Indian Penal Code for initiation of proceeding against the respondent for giving false evidence in the petition.

¶11

2 3.wp.477.2022

¶12

The Criminal MA No. 4158 of 2018 was filed by the respondent against the petitioner, as per the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. It appears that in the meantime the parties had agreed to settle their dispute and withdraw the proceedings filed by them in various Courts.

¶13

The petitioner and the learned Advocate for the respondent submit that for some reason or the other the settlement between the parties failed. Learned Advocate for the respondent submits that in view of the settlement, Criminal M.A. No. 4158 of 2018 was withdrawn by the respondent. Learned Advocate submits that the respondent was misled by the petitioner and as such, she withdrew the proceeding. Learned Advocate further submits that respondent will be making an application for restoration of the said proceeding, in view of the subsequent development and change in the circumstances. It is to be noted that the respondent would be free to take all such permissible steps under law in this direction. The question that remains to be addressed is the fate of the order dated 13.11.2021 passed by the learned Magistrate, which has been

¶14

3 3.wp.477.2022

¶15

challenged in this proceeding. Learned Magistrate, as can be seen from the perusal of the order, had observed that the application made by the petitioner below Exh. 19 would be decided at the time of the final adjudication of the matter. It is the grievance of the petitioner that even at the time of final adjudication as well as after final adjudication this application has not been decided.

¶16

It is to be noted that the proceeding under Section 340 read with other sections mentioned in the application at Exh. 19 was for the limited purpose and independent proceeding. The inquiry, in such a proceeding, has to be confined to the scope of the said proceeding. It is to be noted that since this is a separate & independent proceeding for redressal of the grievance of giving false statements in the proceeding, the Court is bound to decide the same after conducting the necessary inquiry, as mandated by law. Learned Magistrate, in view of the order passed on 13.11.2021 was bound by law to follow his order. In my view, the subsequent withdrawal of the proceeding by the respondent could not be said to be a hurdle in the way of the Magistrate to proceed further with this proceeding and decide it in

¶17

4 3.wp.477.2022

¶18

accordance with law by making necessary inquiry, as provided under law. In the facts and circumstance, this order is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 13.11.2021 is set aside. Learned Magistrate shall decide Exh. 19 in accordance with law.

¶19

The writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

(G. A. SANAP, J.)

¶21

Namrata

¶22

Signed By:NAMRATA YOGESH DHARKAR P. A. High Court Nagpur Signing Date:20.03.2023 19:08

Gajendra S/O Govindrao Waikar v. Laxmi W/O Gajendra Waikar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra S/O Govindrao Waikar v. Laxmi W/O Gajendra Waikar

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

Pundlik S/O Natthuji Landge Vs State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O. City Kotwali, Amravati

Ajay S/O Jainarayan Jaiswal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Police Officer, P. S. Washim and Another

Swati Ashokrao Dawane Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Gadchiroli Tah. and Dist.Gadchiroli

M/S Ambika Buildcon Thr. Its Partner Shammi S/O Kanhaiyalal Mamtani and 2 Others Vs Mr. Suresh Kumar S/O Kishanchan Tanwani

M/S Ambika Buildcon Thr. Its Partner Shammi S/O Kanhaiyalal Mamtani and 2 Others Vs Mr. Suresh Kumar S/O Kishanchan Tanwani

M/S Ambika Buildcon Thr. Its Partner Shammi S/O Kanhaiyalal Mamtani and 2 Others Vs Varsha W/O Suresh Kumar Tanwani