C482/1296/2012 of UDHAY BHAN SHARMA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR
Parties
- By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/1[st] FTC, Roorkee as well as the proceedings (PETITIONER)
- Uday Bham (RESPONDENT)
Cites (1 resolved of 6 detected)
Statutes cited (3)
Full text
solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus
C482 No.1296 of 2012
U. C. Dhyani, J.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for applicants.
Mr. Nandan Arya, Dy. Advocate General with Mr. Prem Kaushal, Brief Holder present for the State.
None is present for the respondent no.2, despite service of notice.
By means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant seeks to quash the order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/1[st] FTC, Roorkee as well as the proceedings of criminal misc. case no.5/2012, State vs. Uday Bham.
Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law for the reason that the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been accepted by the court below on the pretext that the signatures made on the application dated 24.08.2004 and ordersheet were of applicant, which has been proved by the scientific laboratory and denied in the evidence by the applicant. The denial of signatures does not come within the purview of giving false evidence before the court of law and, as such, no offence under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is made out against the applicant.
Since the private respondent has not turned up before this Court despite service of notice upon him, therefore, it appears that he is not interested in prosecuting the applicants.
There seems to be substance in the aforesaid contentions of learned counsel for the applicants.
It will be futile exercise to keep petition under Section C-482 Cr.P.C. pending before this Court.
The Court can intervene in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of law, as has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajiv Thapar and others vs. Madan Lal Kapoor (2013) 3 SCC 330, Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another, 2013 (1) SCC (Crl) 986 and Inder Mohan Gosami and another vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, (2008) 1 SCC (Crl) 259.
The petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed. The order dated 13.07.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/1[st] FTC, Roorkee and the proceedings of criminal misc. case no.5/2012, State vs. Uday Bham are hereby quashed.
Since present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is being decided in the absence of the respondent no.2, therefore, liberty is granted to him to move for recall of this order, if he feels aggrieved with the same.
Dated 27.06.2017
Rawat
(U. C. Dhyani, J.)