Uttarakhand High Court
Shashank Sharma Alias Billu vs State Of Uttarakhand on 18 November, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Jail Appeal No.8 of 2020
Shashank Sharma alias Billu .........Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand .........Respondent
Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the informant.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)
This Criminal Jail Appeal is directed against the
judgment and order dated 31.10.2019 passed by the 2nd
Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun in RM No. 183 of
2019, Shashank Sharma vs. Inder Singh, whereby, the
application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. moved by the
appellant has been rejected.
2. From perusal of the record, it transpires that there
was a Original Suit No.179 of 2001, Shri Inder Singh vs. Shri
Sandeep Goyal, pending between the parties in the court of
Civil Judge (S.D.), Dehradun. In the said suit, the
respondent-Inder Singh has submitted some court fees
through an application annexing the challani form of deposit
of the court fees of Rs.19,69,500/- and the said challani form
along with an application was submitted before the learned
trial court with an application dated 31.03.2015. The said
application was accepted and the deposit of court fees was
taken note of by the learned trial court. Subsequently, it
appears that an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. has
been moved by the appellant stating therein that some false
statement has been made by the respondent-Inder Singh of
deposit of the court fees in the trial and therefore, he should
be proceeded with in accordance with the provision under
Section 340 of Cr.P.C. for giving wrong information and
documents before the learned trial court. The trial court vide
impugned order dated 31.10.2019 has rejected that
application saying that the suit has already been decided and
therefore, the application was rejected.
3. It is feeling aggrieved by the said order dated
31.10.2019 passed by the trial court, the appellant has moved
this appeal from jail purportedly under Section 341 of the
Cr.P.C.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant that instead of filing the challani form, the
appellant should have submitted before the learned trial
court, the court fees judicial stamp and deposit of money in
the treasury is not suffice.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that the money has been deposited towards the
deposit of court fee Rs.19,69,500/-. Therefore, no false
statement, as such, has been ever made by the respondent
before the learned trial court and the application as well as
the appeal filed by the appellant is misconceived and
deserves to be rejected.
6. Having considered the rival arguments of the
learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the
record of Original Suit No.179 of 2001, Shri Inder Singh vs.
Shri Sandeep Goyal, this Court is of the view that though it is
reflected that no court fees judicial stamp has been filed, but
from the record, it transpires that court fees has been
deposited and the same has been accepted by the learned trial
court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is
misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
18.11.2025
Ravi
