SANKHDHARI SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed under S. 482, Cr. P.C. for setting aside the orders dated 2-9-1999 and 27-11-1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Gorakhpur recommending the initiation of criminal proceedings under S. 193, I.P.C. against the applicant and consequent criminal proceedings, vide Complaint Case No. 6507 of 1999 under S. 193, I.P.C. (State v. Sankhdhari Singh) pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur.

(2.) The order dated 2-9-1999 recommending the prosecution of the applicant has been passed on the ground that in a transfer application under S. 24, C.P.C. the applicant is alleged to have stated that he was told by the opposite party, his wife, Smt. Prabhawati, the contestant, that her counsel was the colleague of the Presiding Officer. This fact according to the complaining Court was not correct. Secondly, in his affidavit the applicant has stated that he was told this fact on 30-8-1999 by Smt. Prabhawati, opposite party. But before the Court he had stated that the disclosure has been made to him by Smt. Prabhawati on 31-8-1999 and thus the Court observed that there was a contradiction in the two versions. It was further stated that as the learned counsel for Smt. Prabhawati was a senior advocate he could not be the colleague of the Presiding Officer, who was much younger in age.

(3.) It appears that against the order dated 2-9-1999 rejecting the transfer application of the applicant, the applicant moved Transfer Application No. 220 of 1999 before this Court wherein this Court issued a direction to the complaining Court to proceed in the matter under S. 340, Cr. P.C. after giving an opportunity to the applicant to show cause as to why a criminal complaint should not be filed against him. This Court further directed the trial Court to dispose of the matter after receiving the reply of the show cause notice and after consideration of the same. Thereafter the applicant filed his reply, paper No. 8-C pursuant to the direction issued by this Court.His reply was that due to slip of tongue he has mentioned the date as 31 -8-1999 in place of 30-8-1999 and the statement made by him was in respect of Rajesh Khullar, Advocate son of Sri Kamal Kishore Khullar, Advocate that he was the colleague of the Presiding Officer. There was also a prayer for mercy in case the Court did not accept his contentions.