Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 155 (UTT)

Kundan Lal v. State of U. P.

2004-08-12

B.C.KANDPAL

body2004
JUDGMENT Hon'ble B.C. Kandpal, J.- This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Sri Kundan Lal for quashing the proceedings in criminal case No. 759 of 1987 and case No. 1060 of 1987 pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur. 2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that the respondents No.2 and 3 filed separate complaints with regard to the single incident, which was numbered as criminal case No. 759 of 1987 and 1060 of 1987. The statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 3. As per the allegations made in the complaint the petitioner Kundal Lal lodged F.I.R. with respect to an incident related under Section 307 I.P.C and the petitioner also filed a complaint case against the respondents No.2 and 3 which was culminated in S.T. No. 100 of 1984. The respondents No.2 and 3 were acquitted vide judgment and order dated 2.8.1 986. Thereafter, the respondents no. 2 and 3 filed the complaint as has been stated in the earlier paragraphs. It has been alleged in both the complaint filed by the respondents No.2 and 3 that the offence under Section 500 IPC. has been committed by the petitioner by giving false evidence in the court. 4. It has been stated in this petition that the petitioner has filed appeal against the judgment passed in S.T. No. 100 of 1984 acquitting the respondents no. 2 and 3 before the High Court and no prosecution could be launched on the basis of the findings recorded by the Sessions Judge. S. It has also been averred in the petition that the prosecution of the petitioner is barred by the provision of 468 Cr.P.C. and the court is precluded from taking cognizance of the matter. 6. The counter affidavit has he en filed by the respondent no. 2 and 3, thereafter the petitioner has also filed the rejoinder affidavit. 7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and learned A.G.A 8. Before deciding the actual controversy in the matter,' it would be pertinent to mention here that this petition was dismissed on 29.05.2002 by Hon'ble. Justice Irshad Hussain and the same could be restored by Hon'ble Justice M.M. Ghildiyal vide order dated 21.2.2004. 9. Meanwhile, the trial court proceeded with the matter. Before deciding the actual controversy in the matter,' it would be pertinent to mention here that this petition was dismissed on 29.05.2002 by Hon'ble. Justice Irshad Hussain and the same could be restored by Hon'ble Justice M.M. Ghildiyal vide order dated 21.2.2004. 9. Meanwhile, the trial court proceeded with the matter. It appears from the perusal of the record that the trial court recorded the statement of the witnesses thereafter fixed the case for recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 10. The respondents have filed the certified copy of the statement of the witnesses as well as photo copy of the order sheet of the trial court which corroborates the fact that the case before the court below is at the fag end. The trial court has to decide the matter within a very short time as after the statement of the accused if recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the petitioner will have to adduce the evidence. Thereafter the trial court shall decide the matter finally after hearing the arguments to be advanced by both the parties. 11. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any force in this petition' at this stage and the same is liable to he dismissed. 12. The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is accordingly dismissed.