In Asha Kumari @ Asha Devi vs. Ramchandra Prasad Vimal & Ors. (2026), Justice Dr. Anshuman of Patna High Court delivered a 5-page long judgement dated June 19, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"....this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Original Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2018 is not maintainable. The remedy available to the petitioner was to file an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the same Court in which the alleged false statements were made, and not by way of an independent Original Criminal Miscellaneous proceeding. 8. Upon verification by the Court Master, it has been informed that CWJC No. 7006 of 2017 has already been dismissed for default, whereas CWJC No. 15940 of 2017 is still pending. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that the present application, instituted under the Original Criminal Miscellaneous jurisdiction, is not maintainable because alleged wrong has been made either in CWJC No. 7006 of 2017 or in CWJC No. 15940 of 2017 where application
under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is maintainable. 10. Accordingly, the present Original Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2018 stands dismissed...." The case was filed by Advocate Dhananjay Mishra on August 3, 2018 and registered on September 28, 2018. Earlier, the case was before the Court of Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma.
Now the petitioner will have to move an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the pre-existing CWJC No. 15940 of 2017, where such an application is maintainable.
In Asha Kumari vs. The State Of Bihar & Ors. CWJC No. 7006 of 2017, Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay had directed the respondents to file counter affidavit. In the Court's order dated November 10, 2017, he observed:"In the event the counter affidavit is found or replies are not specific then the court may proceed in accordance with the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Naseem Bano vs State Of U.P. And Others: AIR 1993 SC 2592.....It goes without saying that by filing the counter affidavit the respondents may raise the plea of maintainability, alternative remedy and delay and laches." In his order dated April 24, 2018, he observed:"....the State is required to file additional counter affidavit adverting to the issue of forged certificate of the petitioner." The other six respondents were:2. The Principle Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, 4. The District Education Officer, Lakhisarai, 5. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Lakhisarai, 6. The Block Education Officer, Piparia, Prakhand- Piparia, Lakhisarai and 7. Smt. Rina Kumari. It is clear from the Court's record that the required counter affidavit and additional counter affidavits were filed in compliance with the Court's orders. It is also crystal clear that replies to counter affidavits were filed. But when on one fine day when the case was listed on June 24, 2024 after more than six years, Justice Anil Kumar Sinha passed an order dismissing the petition because no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner to press this application. Binod Kumar, the petitioner's advocate could nor appear. The order reads: "1. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press this application. 2. Learned counsel for the State is present.This application stands dismissed for default." It is not clear as to whether petitioner's counsel had filed for the restoration of the petition.
In Asha Kumari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. CWJC-15940/2017 was filed on November 3, 2017 and registered on November 6, 2017 by petitioner's Advocate Dhananjay Mishra, Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay passed an order dated November 10, 2017 which reads:"Pendency of the writ application will not stand in the way of the respondents in making payment of the admitted dues of the petitioner." It was last heard by the Court of Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay on April 24, 2018. This case is pending.
Upon a specific query from Justice Dr. Anshuman to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether the present Original Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1 of 2018, filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking initiation of an inquiry on the allegation that the opposite party had made false and frivolous statements in CWJC No. 7006 of 2017 and CWJC No. 15940 of 2017, is maintainable as an independent proceeding, or whether an application under Section 340 CrPC was required to be filed before the same Court where such false statement is alleged to have been made. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that, he was not in a position to answer the query but only submitted that the case was maintainable.
The Court requested Rajendra Narayan, Senior Advocate, and Ajay Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, who were present in Court, to express their views on the legal issue involved. Both of them unequivocally submitted that an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was maintainable only before the same Court in relation to whose proceedings the offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was alleged to have been committed.
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure now Section 379 in Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 reads: “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 interest 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;
a. record a finding to that effect;
b. make a complaint thereof in writing;
c. send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
d. take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
e. bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
2. The power conferred on a Court by Sub-Section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that 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.
3. A complaint made under this section shall be signed;
a. where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
b. in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 195.”
Justice Dr. Anshuman observed: "6. Bare perusal of aforesaid provision make it abundantly clear that when it appears to a Court where proceeding is pending that an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. has been committed in relation to a document produced or evidence given in a proceeding before that Court, it is that very Court which is empowered to conduct a preliminary inquiry, if considered necessary, and to take appropriate action in accordance with law."
No comments:
Post a Comment