BHARATENDU PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shivendra S Singh Rathore, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the for the State-respondents and perused the material placed on record.

(2.) The present application has been filed praying for setting-aside the final judgment/order dtd. 3/10/2024 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 66/2023 ( Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev Krishna & 2 others) filed under Sec. 341 of the Cr. P.C. by the applicant as well as the order dtd. 16/3/2023 passed by the learned CJM, Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No.1041/2023 (Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev Krishna & 2 others) filed under Sec. 340 of the Cr. P.C by the applicant.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 prepared questionnaires under General Rules (Criminal), 1977 for declaration of a fact was false and they knew that the said questionaires Bharatendu Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others were false on the date when the same was obtained under the seal and signature of the concerned Court. According to him, the learned CJM, Lucknow, while exercising jurisdiction under Sec. 340 Cr.P.C has committed material irregularity in forming opinion contrary to the admissible documentary proof of the offence under Sec. 191 and Sec. 192 of the Indian Penal Code, which paves foundation for the offence under Sec. 196 and 199 of the IPC. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the gravity of the offence is such that new modus operandi has been invented by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to misuse a legal instrument to cater to their quests for personal gains which evidently has become so intense that the opposite parties, who are involved in litigation and are senior Government servants, did not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood.