The High Court quashed an order directing a Magistrate to enquire under Section 340 Cr.P.C. instead of the Sessions Judge, ruling that such powers cannot be delegated, though the Judge may now enquire personally.
Order dated 14.8.2010 set aside; Sessions Judge liberty to enquire and pass orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc. No. M-11285 of 2010 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-11285 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.08.2012
Lalit Kumar and another
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH
Present: - Mr. M.S. Rakkar, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. P.S. Baath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Jaspreet Kaur, AAG, Punjab.
PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)
Crl. Misc. No.62485 of 2011
This application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of order dated 14.8.2010 (Annexure P-6), vide which the learned Sessions Judge has sent the case to the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class for holding enquiry.
The basic question involved in the present case is whether Sessions Judge can delegate his powers conferred under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to another Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that an application was filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge. Instead of enquiring himself, learned Sessions Judge sent the matter to learned Chief Judicial Magistrate for enquiry.
Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C., which read as under: -
Crl. Misc. No. M-11285 of 2010 (O&M)
-2-
“ 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. - (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where the Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 195.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment
of Delhi High Court in the case of Neeraj Sharma vs. NCT of Delhi and others, Crl. M.C. 2020/2005 decided on 6.4.2009 to contend that the learned Sessions Judge could not send the case to the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class.
It is settled principle of law that the Court before whom the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is made cannot delegate and if
-3-
Crl. Misc. No. M-11285 of 2010 (O&M)
some fraud or forgery has been committed that Court only has power to enquire into the matter.
Keeping in view the above, order dated 14.8.2010 is set aside. However, learned Sessions Judge will be at liberty to enquiry into the matter and pass appropriate orders after enquiry.
Crl. Misc. No.11285 of 2010
Present petition has been filed under Section 407 Cr.P.C. for transfer of the trial of case 'State vs. Vikas Gupta and others', FIR No.97 dated 5.6.2009 under Sections 302/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station City Rupnagar, from the Court of Sh. G.K. Dhir, Sessions Judge, Ropar, to any other Court of competent jurisdiction with the State of Punjab or UT Chandigarh.
This petition has been rendered infructuous as learned Sessions Judge from whose Court the case is sought to be transferred has since been transferred from Ropar.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge
August 07, 2012 R.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Sessions Judge can delegate powers under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to another Court.
Whether an order sending a Section 340 application to a Magistrate instead of enquiring itself by the Sessions Judge is valid.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Neeraj Sharma vs. NCT of Delhi and othersRelied on¶33
Neeraj Sharma vs. NCT of Delhi and others, Crl. M.C. 2020/2005 decided on 6.4.2009
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Lalit Kumar
State of Punjab
Paramjeet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
