RUKAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned Assistant Government Advocate for the State of Uttarakhand.

(2.) THIS Criminal Misc. Application has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the summary proceedings ini­tiated against the applicant by the Ses­sions Judge, Uttarkashi dated 16.4.2010 by giving him a notice under Section 344 Cr.P.C. whereby a case has been regis­tered against him as Criminal Case No. 4 of 2010 State Vs. Rukam Singh. The applicant was prosecution witness No. 1 (P.W.1) in Session Trial No. 25 of 2007 State Vs. Khushpal Singh and another. P.W.1 gave a statement as a witness in the aforesaid case and the learned Ses­sions Judge was of the opinion that the statement given by P.W. 1 i.e. the present applicant is false and therefore he should be proceeded in a summary trial under Section 344 of Cr.P.C. Although the learned Sessions Judge in Session Trial No. 25 of 2007 has convicted the ac­cused Khushpal Singh under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and also directed that Rs. 40,000/- shall be paid to prosecutrix Km. Pramila as a compensation. Under Section 376 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge has further convicted the accused Khushpal Singh and sentenced 7 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and under Section 506 I.P.C. convicted and sen­tenced the accused Khushpal Singh 1 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/-. It is also an admitted case that this accused per­son has filed a Criminal Appeal being No. 77 of 2010 Khushpal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand which is presently under consideration of this Court. On these set of facts, the present applicant has relied upon Section 344 (4) Cr.P.C. which clearly stipulates that in case an appeal or an application for revision has been pre­ferred or filed against the judgment or order, further proceedings under Section 344 initiated against the witness shall re­main stayed and will depend upon the final outcome of the revision or the ap­peal, as the case may be. On this provi­sion of law, further proceedings in Crimi­nal Misc. Case No. 4 of 2010 have al­ready been stayed by this Court. It is, therefore, in the fitness of thing and in view of the clear provision of the statute that the further proceedings shall remain stayed and will further proceed only af­ter the outcome of Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010. The present application is therefore liable to be dismissed. The Reg­istry is also directed to inform the out­come of Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2010 (presently pending before this Court) forthwith to the Sessions Judge, Uttarkashi.

(3.) NO order as to costs.