Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 125 (ALL)

Dinesh Singh v. State of U. P.

2017-01-10

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J. Application under section 340 Cr.P.C. was moved by one Chet Narain Singh before the court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi in which prayer was made for initiation of proceedings under section 340 Cr.P.C. against Sheetala Prasad and other persons for offences under sections 109, 120-B, 465, 468, 471, 476 IPC. After hearing, said court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, Varanasi had rejected the application under section 340 Cr.P.C. on the ground that consolidation court has no powers under Code of Criminal Procedure to initiate such proceedings. 2. Against said order dated 25.8.2004 passed by the court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation, said Chet Narain Singh had preferred Criminal Appeal no. 46 of 2004 (Chet Narain Singh v. Assistant Settlement Officer and others), that was heard and dismissed by the judgment dated 8.2.2007 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Varanasi with finding that trial court had not committed error in exercise of its jurisdiction. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment of two lower courts, present revision has been preferred by one Dinesh Singh who is son of late Chet Narain Singh. 4. From perusal of record, it is found that one affidavit was filed on behalf of OP no. 2 to 6 alleging the age of two persons as 23 and 24 years. The Chet Narain Singh side felt that said affidavit regarding age of two persons was incorrect, therefore he moved application under section 340 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the deponent of said affidavit. 5. Said affidavit was sworn by only one person namely OP No. 2 Sheetala Prasad son of Harkhu Singh. Therefore there was no propriety for prosecuting other persons named in application of Chet Narain Singh, even if contents of said application would have been correct. 6. So far matter relating to prosecution of Sheetala Prasad is concerned there appears no finding of court concerned (Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation), till now that Sheetala Prasad had sworn false affidavit on any point. Unless there is any specific finding of court concerned in regard to commission of offence mentioned in section 195 Cr.P.C. the complaint should not be filed and powers for initiation of proceeding under section 340 Cr.P.C. should not exercise. It appears that the application of Chet Narain Singh was slightly premature, which was filed before passing of any order regarding finding of alleged commission of any overt act by Sheetala Prasad. It appears that the application of Chet Narain Singh was slightly premature, which was filed before passing of any order regarding finding of alleged commission of any overt act by Sheetala Prasad. Therefore the finding of lower appellate court dismissing the appeal is found not erroneous. 7. In spite of above mentioned findings, this ground mentioned in order of Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation dated 25.8.2004 is found legally incorrect that his court has no jurisdiction to exercise powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 345 specifically provides that civil, criminal or revenue courts can exercise such rights under section 195 read with 340 Cr.P.C. if concerned offences have been found committed during proceedings of the case before such court. Consolidation courts also decide the matter that have final effect for revenue courts. After the completion of consolidation proceedings, the revenue courts step into shoes of consolidation courts. Consolidation courts also possess same power in this regard, relating to section 195 read with section 340 Cr.P.C., which the revenue courts possess. 8. If any such alleged overt act appears to have been committed as mentioned in section 195 Cr.P.C., then civil, criminal, revenue or consolidation courts will have jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders under section 340 Cr.P.C. 9. Accordingly, this revision stands disposed of.