LexSANJAY KUMAR versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014) 1 S.C.R. 848 A SANJAY KUMAR B c v THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.9967 of 2011) JANUARY 28, 2014 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. CHELAMESWAR AND M.Y. EQBAL, JJ.] PLEADINGS: Complaint for offences punishable u/ss 406 and 420 /PC and s. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act - Quashed by High Court - SLP by complainant - Notice to petitioner- complainant to show that the institution was a fake one as 0 pleaded by him - Petitioner seeking to ignore such pleadings - Held: Pleadings have to be true to the knowledge of parties and in case a person takes such misleading pleadings, he can be refused not only any kind of indulgence by court but can also be tried for perjury - In case, pleading taken by petitioner is true, he cannot ask for ignoring the same - In E case, it is false and as such statement had been made on oath, he is liable to be tried for perjury - More so, whether such a pleading is relevant or not is a matter to be decided by court and uls 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, court has a right to ask the party even relevant or irrelevant questions and F parties or their counsel cannot raise any objection to any sucf1 question - Conduct of petitioner condemned - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 482 - Evidence Act, 1872 - s. 165. G PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: Advocate-on-Record - Not appearing before Court in spite of directions - Held: In Re: Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Court has held that in case AOR does not appear in Court, 848 SANJAY KUMAR v. STATE OF BIHAR 849 his conduct may tantamount to criminal contempt of Court - A In the instant case, AOR, with impunity was disdainful towards the order of the Court directing him to appear in Court - He had also not filed any appearance for the counsel who had appeared, nor did the said counsel disclose his name - Court takes serious note of the conduct of AOR and warns B him to behave in an appropriate manner befitting the conduct of an advocate and an AOR, otherwise Court will take action against him - His conduct will be under close watch of the Court. In Re: Rameshwar Prasad Goyal (2014) 1 SCC 572 - C relied on. Case Law Reference: (2014) 1 sec 572 relied on para 5 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (Criminal } No. 9967 of 2011. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.07.2011 of the D High Court of Patna in CRLM No. 13116 of 2009. E Manu Shanker Mishra for the Appellant. Gopal Singh, Chandan Kumar for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered F ORDER 1. This special leave petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 22.7.2011, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Misc. No.13116 G of 2009 quashing the criminal proceedings against the respondent no.2 while allowing the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). ~ H 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 1 S.C.R. -- A 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are tHat: A. The petitioner claimed to have been appointed by the private respondent no.2 in a fake dental college as a Senior 8 Lecturer for a period of one year and issued 12 post dated cheques for payment of his salary out of which 9 cheques had bounced. The complainant-petitioner sent legal notice to the respondent no.2 but without giving them sufficient time to file a reply, filed a complaint before the Magistrate at Danapur, Patna under Sections 34, 403, 404, 406, 408, 418, 420 and 504 of C the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as 'NI Acf). B. Learned Magistrate, Danapur vide an order dated D 12.5.2008 summoned the private respondent for appearance on 12.6.2008, being prima facie of the view that a case under Sections 406, 420 IPC and under Section 138 of NI Act was made out by the petitioner. The private respondent challenged the said order by filing the petition before the High Court which E has been allowed vide impugned judgment and order on various grounds, inter-alia that there was an agreement between the parties for service for one year and one of the conditions in the agreement was that the petitioner would not resign from the institute till the completion of 3 years. More so, the petitioner F did not even give sufficient time to the accused to respond to the legal not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.