Dhrub Narayan Upadhyay, J. - (1.) THIS Cr.M.P. has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 232/2012 by which learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal in default.
(2.) THE facts in brief is that the petitioner happens to be accused in C.P. Case No. 1467/2010 lodged by O.P. No. 2, who is non else but the wife of the petitioner. O.P. No. 2 has levelled allegation of demand of dowry, torture and assault against the petitioner. In the aforesaid case cognizance was taken. It transpires that on 15.10.2011 a petition was filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court for initiating an enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. and also for initiating criminal proceeding under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. against the complainant (O.P. No. 2). It was contended that the witnesses during enquiry have given false statement. The petitioner was not present on the date on which alleged occurrence took place. He is a 'Tour Guide' and he was away from the place of occurrence on the relevant dates. Since the complainant - O.P. No. 2 and witnesses examined during enquiry had given false statement, enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is needed and appropriate complaint is required to be filed against them under sub -section (i) of Section 340 Cr.P.C.
(3.) THE learned Magistrate after granting hearing to the parties by order dated 19.06.2012 rejected the petition dated 15.10.2011 filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge vide Cr. Appeal No. 232/12. Since the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the appeal on default without dealing with the merit of the case, the petitioner has preferred present Cr.M.P. against the order dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Cr. Appeal No. 232/2012.;