TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA, J. - (1.) THE instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the quashing of order dated 5.4.2012 at Annexure P1 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur to the extent that directions have been issued for notice to be issued to the petitioner as also another under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to show cause as to why they be not punished for giving false evidence in the Court. Further challenge is to the notice under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure dated 1.10.2013 at Annexure P4 that has been issued in pursuance to the impugned order dated 5.4.2012, Annexure P1.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length and the case paper book has been  perused. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the petitioner, namely Jugraj Singh son of Karam Singh had appeared as a prosecution witness and had, later on, resiled from his earlier statement made by him in the complaint before the Court of the jurisdictional Magistrate and as a consequence thereupon, accused Natha Singh, Jagsir Singh, Bohar Singh and Jaj Singh had been acquitted of the charges framed against them for offences under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27/54/59 of the Arms Act. In the impugned order, it has further been noticed that during cross -examination by the Public Prosecutor, the petitioner/complainant had stated that he had filed the complaint before the Magistrate and he had seen such statement on the Court file and it bears his signatures. Petitioner had further stated that he had made a statement before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur on 15.3.2008 which also bears his signatures. Petitioner had even volunteered that he had made the complaint at the instance of the people of the village because of party faction. Same reason was assigned as regards making statement in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class.
(3.) LEARNED counsel has not been able to rebut the aforenoticed factual position as has been noticed by the Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in the impugned order dated 5.4.2012. The impugned order, as such, does not suffer from any perversity.;