Pradhumn Shrivastava vs Subhash Chandra Pandey
2024 Latest Caselaw 3489 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pradhumn Shrivastava vs Subhash Chandra Pandey on 6 February, 2024

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                          1
                          IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                            ON THE 6 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                        MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 27661 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         PRADHUMN SHRIVASTAVA S/O S.K. SHRIVASTAVA,
                         AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, H. NO. 56 NEHRU NAGAR
                         BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....APPLICANT
                         (BY MS. SANJANA SAHNI - ADVOCATE WITH SHRI JASPREET SINGH
                         GULATI - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         SUBHASH CHANDRA PANDEY S/O S.K. PANDEY H. NO. 6
                         COMFORT GARDEN BHATTI THANA KOLAR ROAD
                         BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
                         (NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT )

                               This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
                         following:
                                                           ORDER

This is a petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of order dated 23.05.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.401/2022 passed by 12th Additional Session Judge, Bhopal (M.P.).

2 . I t is contended by the counsel for the applicant that the present applicant moved an application under Section 340 read with Sections 469 of Cr.P.C. and Sections 191, 193, 195(1) and 211 of I.P.C. before the Court and made a prayer that as the complainant made false statement during recording of his testimony, he is required to be prosecuted in terms of Section 340 of

Cr.P.C. The said application was dismissed vide an order dated 02.08.2022. The order dated 02.08.2022 was assailed by filing an appeal before the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhopal. The said appeal has also been dismissed vide judgement dated 23.05.2023 which is being assailed in this petition.

3.It is contended by the counsel for the applicant that orders are unsustainable and the entire order of conviction is based on the incorrect statement made by the complainant. It is further contended by the counsel that this aspect was not appreciated by the trial Court while passing the order dated 02.08.2022. Hence, counsel submits that the order deserves to be set aside.

4.Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, a

perusal of the order passed by the JMFC, Bhopal dated 02.08.2022 reflects that the present applicant approached the Court with an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. etc. The said application was dealt with vide an order dated 02.08.2022. The Court while considering the application, considered the aspect that the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that the present applicant had given him an amount of Rs.50,000/- and as per the evidence of complainant only, the present applicant was convicted by the Court below. The judgment of conviction was assailed by filing an appeal however, the appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 08.05.2014. Though the said judgment is subject matter of challenge before this Court in Cr.R. No.1255/2014, yet the Court did not commit any error while passing the order dated 02.08.2022.

5. Thus, a perusal of operative paragraph of the order dated 02.08.2022 makes it abundantly clear that on the basis of cross-examination of the complainant, the trial Court proceeded to convict the present applicant, and therefore, the issue that the complainant was guilty of perjury will depend upon fate of Cr.R. No.1255/2014 which is pending before this Court.

6. Resultantly, this Court does not find any merit in the petition and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. No order as to costs.

7. None of the observations made in this order shall have bearing on the criminal revision No.1255/2014 which is pending, assailing the judgment of conviction.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn