JUDGMENT 1. - No one has appeared for the petitioner, although the case was called first time in the morning and then again, after the tea interval. 2. I have, therefore, perused the application of the petitioner and gone through the order passed against him. I have also perused the order dated 24th July, 1978 in which the order was given that the petitioner should be proceeded with under S. 344 Cr.P.C., Notice given to the petitioner in pursuance of that, order dated 7th October, 1978 was also perused. 3. The petitioner was examined as PW 8 by the prosecution and finding of the learned Munsif Magistrate (Railway), Bikaner is that while appearing as witness he has perjured with the motive to help the accused and it is in the interest of justice that proceedings should be taken against him under S. 344, Cr.P.C. and notice should be given for that. The contention raised by the petitioner-applicant is that there is no finding of the court that his prosecution is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice as per the requirement of S. 344, Cr.P.C. I am convinced that the learned magistrate was convinced that the prosecution of the petitioner is necessary in the interest of justice as he has perjured deliberately in order to help the accused. 4. Another contention raised is that the proceedings in which notice has been given, are not judicial proceedings. I am unable to appreciate how the statement recorded by the magistrate where he has alleged to have perjured, is not part of the proceedings. 5. In any case, these all objections can be raised during the trial and if they have got any substance, the magistrate can acquit the accused on any of these grounds if they are relevant and have got any force in law. I find that so far only proceedings have commened under S. 344. Cr. P. C. and the trial would take place where in the petitioner applicant will have full right to raise all legal objections. 6. In view of this, additional fact the proceedings under S. 428, Cr.P.C, are wholly misconceived as neither there have been any abuse of process of court nor quashing of this order is necessary to secure the ends of justice. 6. In view of this, additional fact the proceedings under S. 428, Cr.P.C, are wholly misconceived as neither there have been any abuse of process of court nor quashing of this order is necessary to secure the ends of justice. I also find that quashing of this impugned order is not necessary to give effect to any order under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. The result is that this application, fails and is hereby dismissed.Application dismissed. *******