VIRENDRA KUMAR SHASTRI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER
LAWS(UTN)-2012-2-38
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on February 24,2012

Virendra Kumar Shastri Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, it transpires that there is a Vedic Mohan Ashram, at Bhupatwala, Haridwar, having ownership interalia upon two shops in the locality, which were once leased to Shankar Lal, father of Sushil Kumar. Sushil Kumar used to run these shops for vending construction materials but somehow or the other could not be successful in his business, so these shops were allegedly surrendered in favour of Ashram. The same were again let out to some other fellow by Yashvir Singh claiming himself to the Managing Trustee of the Ashram for a handsome consideration. This all is the backdrop of entire bone of contention.
(2.) VIRENDRA Kumar Shastri alleging himself to be the Chief Managing Trustee of the Ashram moved an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to the concerned Magistrate, who having relied upon the affidavit of Virendra Kumar Shastri as well as another affidavit conjointly filed in support of that application passed an order dated 01.06.2007 for registration and investigation of the matter. The affidavit filed in support of that application was allegedly of Sushil Kumar and the contents of the same were also ratified by his father Shankar Lal. When the matter being proceeded in the Police Station, Sushil Kumar moved an application to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar on dated 07.06.2007 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. with the allegation that the affidavit filed in his name along with application 156 (3) moved by Virendra Kumar Shastri is fabricated one and he neither deposed his affidavit nor his father Shankar Lal has ever ratified the same. He urged the court concerned for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and to file a complaint against Virendra Kumar Shastri for the appropriate offence. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate after having preliminary inquiry under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. passed the impugned order on dated 01.04.2008. Learned Magistrate was of the view that prima facie the affidavit, in question, did not appear to be a genuine one, so he ordered to file a complaint in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Haridwar for the appropriate offence.
(3.) FEELING disgruntled with the said order, Virendra Kumar Shastri has filed present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the provisions of Section 340(1)(d) Cr.P.C., which reads thus: 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 interests 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 maybe, 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 of 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.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.