RAKESH GOEL Vs. MANEESH GOEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'the Code') prays for quashing the order dated 11.4.1990 passed by the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal directing the trial Court to follow the procedure as laid down under Section 340 of the Code. Further direction has also been issued to record finding with regard to the veracity of the complaint made by the complainant-respondent Bhagwat Goel who had filed an application under Section 340 of the Code.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the instant petition are that the petitioner, Rakesh Goel filed a civil suit against Maneesh Goel son of Bhagwat Goel. It is also appropriate to mention that Maneesh Goel is the nephew of Rakesh Goel. Taking serious view of the averments made by the petitioner in the suit an application under Section 340 of the Code was filed by Bhagwat Goel in the Court of Civil Judge, Panipat levelling allegations of fabrication of evidence and documents by the petitioner during the trial of the suit. On the basis of the allegations a request was made to the Court to proceed against the petitioner under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200 and 120-B IPC read with Sections 195 and 340 of the Code. The Civil Judge did not decide the application filed under Section 340 of the Code and proceeded to frame an additional issue No. 6.9.1988 in the civil suit itself. Having failed to persuade the Civil Judge to follow the procedure as contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the complainant-respondent filed an appeal before the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge who has accepted the submissions made by the complainant- respondent. He has issued directions to the trial Court to proceed with the complaint by following the procedure laid down under Section 340 of the Code and record a finding with regard to the veraciousness of the allegations.

(3.) SHRI Satbir Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the order of the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity because the procedure prescribed by Section 340 of the Code is mandatory. Learned counsel has submitted that the framing of an issue in the civil suit is no ground for refusal to decide the complaint filed by the complainant-respondent. He has maintained that the appeal is competent before the ld. Addl. Sessions Judge under Section 341 of the Code once the trial Court had refused to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant- respondent.