Paramjeet Singh vs Dharam Chand and Another

Rekha Mittal, J.—The present petition filed u/s 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ''the Code'') lays challenge to order dated 05.11.2012, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 18.11.2009, passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa, has been dismissed. The facts relevant for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner filed an application for initiating proceedings u/s 340 of the Code, on the allegations that in a complaint ''Dharam Chand and others v. Malkiet Singh and others'', the petitioner has been arrayed as accused No. 13. As per orders dated 01.01.2004 and 01.10.2004, passed by this Court, the applicant (petitioner herein) in discharge of his official duties sanctioned mutation bearing No. 3694 dated 03.03.2005 and in the mutation in column pertaining to name of cultivator and owner, had mentioned the previous entries, which reflect the names of Dharam Chand and Narayan Dass as owners. After entering the mutation, jamabandi was prepared showing both of them to be owners in possession. Complainants Dharam Chand and Narayan Dass knowing fully well that the statement given by them on oath before the Court is false qua the applicant had wrongly deposed that accused Nos. 1 to 8 in connivance with accused No. 13 sanctioned mutation bearing No. 3964 and accused No. 13 prepared wrong record for the benefit of accused Nos. 1 to 8 and caused loss to the complainants.

The application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirsa. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Sessions, which was disposed of vide impugned order dated 05.11.2012 affirming the order passed by the trial Court.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa committed a grave error and illegality in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for initiation of criminal proceedings against the respondents as they made false statements before the Court knowing fully well that the statements made on oath were false qua imputations against the petitioner.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the case file, particularly the orders passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and Additional Sessions Judge, Sirsa.

A perusal of the order passed by the trial Court would reveal that the petitioner moved application for initiating proceedings u/s 340 of the Code even before the Court did apply its mind to the evidence on record or passing an order summoning the accused. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, in the light of the provisions of Section 340 of the Code has recorded a finding that it confers discretionary jurisdiction on the Court and it is the subjective satisfaction of the Court to initiate preliminary inquiry if it is found to be necessary and expedient in the interest of justice. In the instant case, the petitioner approached the Court before an order summoning the accused was passed. At this stage, the accused does not get a right of hearing or to cross examine the witnesses. It is surprising that before any process is issued, the petitioner by filing application u/s 340 of the Code, put an unwarranted pre-empt effort to challenge correctness of statements of witnesses and stall the proceedings in the complaint case. It appears that such a recourse is not open to a person arrayed as accused in a private complaint.

The Court, in view of the facts and circumstances, rightly held that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings u/s 340 of the Code. This apart, the Court is not obliged to initiate proceedings u/s 340 of the Code in every case in which a finding is recorded that the statement made by a witness is found to be false. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to substantiate his plea that the discretion exercised by the trial Court, affirmed in appeal amounts to an error much less illegality warranting interference in exercise of limited revisional jurisdiction u/s 401 of the Code. In view of the above, the petition is dismissed in limine.