Patna High Court
Ishwar Chandra Pandey vs State Of Bihar And Anr on 14 February, 2025
Author: Jitendra Kumar
Bench: Jitendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.44 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.- Year-1111 Thana- District-
======================================================
Ishwar Chandra Pandey, Son of Late Rameshwar Pandey, Resident of Village
- Rajapur, P.S.- Kateya, District - Gopalganj
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Bihar
2. Bachcha Pandey, Son of Late Ram Subhag Pandey, Resident of Village -
Rajapur, P.S.- Kateya, District - Gopalganj
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Akhileshwar Dayal, APP
For the O.P. No.2 : Mr. Shashank Shekhar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 14-02-2025
The present Revision Petition has been preferred by
the petitioner against the Appellate Judgment dated 18.09.2018
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Gopalganj in
Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2018, whereby learned Sessions
Court has allowed the appeal setting aside the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2017 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-XVI, Gopalganj in
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.44 of 2019 dt.14-02-2025
G.C No. 11 of 2008 corresponding to Trial No. 584 of 2017,
whereby learned Trial Court had found the Opposite Party
No.2/Bachcha Pandey guilty under Section 193 of the Indian
Penal Code and had acquitted him of the charges under Section
420 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The brief facts of the case is that there was a title
suit bearing no. 71 of 1968 in the Civil Court, Gopalganj in
regard to the land in question. In that suit, there was decree in
favour of the petitioner herein and in pursuance of the decree,
delivery of possession was to be made on 24.11.2007. Even civil
appeal bearing no. 27 of 2007 was filed by the Opposite Party
no.2 herein in the District Civil Court, but stay sought by the
Opposite Party No.2 herein in the said appeal against the
petitioner herein was not granted. It further transpires that just
two days prior to the date fixed for delivery of possession in
favour of the petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 herein
preferred one petition before learned S.D.M. for preventive
measure alleging that the petitioner herein was bent upon to
make construction over the land in question, which might result
into breach of public peace. In pursuance of the petition before
learned S.D.M, leanred S.D.M had directed status quo to be
maintained on the landed property in question. However, it
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.44 of 2019 dt.14-02-2025
came to the notice of learned S.D.M that the delivery of
possession was already to be made in favour of the petitioner
herein. Hence, he vacated his order regarding the status quo and
set up an inquiry into the statement made by the Opposite Party
No.2 in his petition before him, and, hence, after inquiry report
of the Circle Officer, he directed lodging of complaint under
Section 420, 466 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged, trial
started before learned Judicial Magistrate and Opposite Party
No.2 herein was found to be guilty under Section 193 of the
Indian Penal Code, but was acquitted of charges under Section
420 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code. Even conviction under
Section 193 IPC was set aside by learned Appellate Court in
Criminal Appeal No. 06 of 2018 filed by the Opposite Party
No.2 herein, and, hence, the petitioner, being aggrieved, has
preferred the present Revision Petition.
4. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned APP for the State as well as learned counsel for the
Opposite Party No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
learned Appellate Court has acquitted the Opposite Party No.2
on the ground that prior to lodging complaint, no inquiry under
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.44 of 2019 dt.14-02-2025
Section 340 Cr.PC was made, which is not true because as per
record, after inquiry under Section 340 Cr.PC complaint was
directed to be lodged against the Opposite Party No.2. Hence,
the ground of acquittal made by learned Appellate Court is not
sustainable.
6. He further submits that Opposite Party No.2 had
made wrong statement in his petition before learned S.D.M. to
procure favourable order, and, hence, the acquittal of the
Opposite Party No.2 under Section 193 of the Indian Penal
Code is sustainable in the eye of law.
7. However, learned APP for the State and learned
counsel for the Opposite Party No.2 submit that there is no
illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment of learned
Appellate Court below because the first and foremost
requirement for application of Section 193 of the Indian Penal
Code is making wrong statement before the court concerned, but
as per the perusal of the petition for taking preventive measure,
there is no wrong statement at all made by the Opposite Party
No.2 before learned S.D.M., though there is concealment of
material facts but concealment of material facts do not attract
application of Section 193 of IPC.
8. Hence, even if the ground given by learned
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.44 of 2019 dt.14-02-2025
Appellate Court for setting aside the conviction under Section
193 IPC is not sustainable, the conviction of the Opposite Party
No.2 under Section 193 IPC was not sustainable on merit.
Hence, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
9. I considered the rival submissions advanced by
the parties and perused the material on record.
10. From perusal of the petition filed by the
Opposite Party No.2 before learned S.D.M., I find that there is
no statement made by the Opposite Party No.2 in his petition
which is contrary to established or undisputed facts, though I
find that the Opposite Party No.2 has not disclosed all the
relevant material facts for the proceeding. But there is no wrong
statement regarding the civil suit, decree passed therein,
execution proceeding thereof or appeal against the decree,
though he has concealed that his application for stay was
rejected by the Civil Appellate Court. He has also not disclosed
that the execution proceeding was already under process for
delivery of possession of the property in favour of the petitioner.
11. I further find that Section 193 of IPC is meant
to maintain the purity of judicial proceeding, and, hence, parties
are required not to give any wrong statement. Punishing the
party under Section 193 IPC for concealment of some facts
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.44 of 2019 dt.14-02-2025
would be far stretching.
12. Hence, in the given facts and circumstances, I
find that Section 193 of IPC is not applicable, and, hence, there
is no infirmity or illegality in the acquittal of the Opposite Party
No.2 of the charge under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. The present petition is dismissed, accordingly.
(Jitendra Kumar, J.)
Chandan/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.02.2025
Transmission Date 17.02.2025
