2025:UHC:7113 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA Criminal Misc. Application No.1318 of 2013 12th August, 2025 Smt. Reena Panwar -- Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. L. K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned DAG along with Mr. Devendra Singh, learned AGA for the State. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT This Criminal Misc. Application has been filed by the applicant for quashing/expunging the impugned direction of issuing/ serving a notice under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. upon the applicant vide judgment and order dated 13.11.2013 in S.T. No.32 of 2013, Sate of Uttarakhand v. Dinesh Lal. 2. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that an FIR was lodged by one Smt. Sangufta Parveen, a member of District Child Welfare Committee, Tehri Garhwal at Police Station, New Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal on 20.07.2013 with the allegation that the accused, resident of Village Pata Patti Sarjyula, Tehri Garhwal committed rape with 2025:UHC:7113 2 her daughter (victim). After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused Dinesh Lal to face trial for the offence under Sections 376(1) & 323 of IPC, thereafter, charge was framed by the trial court under Section 376 IPC. 3. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused and directed to issue notice under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. upon the present applicant. Paragraph 25 of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, which is impugned in this criminal misc. application is reproduced below:- “25. The officer is government officer bound to protect the interest of the child and Smt. Reena Panwar stated that she has not unfolded her identity to her is nothing but totally false and she has deliberately concealed the fact from the court to misguide the court and for the said concealment of fact a notice U/s 340 Cr.P.C. be served upon Smt. Reena Panwar why she should not be dealt with according to section 340 Cr.P.C.” 4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant being a District Program Coordinator, Mahila Samakhya, New Tehri and, on information, helped the Child Welfare Committee, as the matter was very serious and related to a girl child. He would further submit that the applicant did not give any fabricated and false evidence before the Court, which would invoke the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. against her; that, the ground 2025:UHC:7113 3 mentioned in the judgment for issuing notice to the applicant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge is that she did not unfold the identity of the phone number and the person, who gave an information regarding the victim. He would further submit that since the matter was very sensitive and the identity of the person and phone number have no relevance with the trial; that, the statement of the applicant was corroborated by the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C; that, the applicant was corroborated by the statement of the victim and From the statement of the applicant and the statement of the victim, it is apparently clear that the applicant have not given any false statement and the ingredients of Section 340 Cr.P.C., are not fulfilled and also she has not withheld any information with a deliberate intention to hamper the trial. The non-discloser of the phone number and name of the person, who informed the applicant about the incident, was not relative because the victim herself in her statement has stated about authenticity and the veracity of the incident. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant has relied on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N.S. Nandiesha Reddy vs. Kavitha Mahesh, reported in (2021) 19 SCC 321, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that mere reference to inconsistent statements are not sufficient to take action, unless definite finding is given that they are irreconcilable. 2025:UHC:7113 4 The relevant portion of the judgment is reads as under:- “20. As noted from the decision in the case of Amarsang Nathaji (supra) and the position of law which is well established is that even in a case where the Court comes to the conclusion on the aspect of intentional false evidence, still the Court has to form an opinion whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such prosecution. The Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interest of justice and is appropriate in the facts of the case.” 6. After perusal of the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the statement of the applicant, it is apparently clear that she has deposed before the Court the facts, which were in her knowledge and she has not tried to mislead deliberately, intentionally and her statement would not amount to deliberate or intentional falsehood, which would invoke the provision of Section 340 Cr.P.C. 7. Accordingly, this Court finds it appropriate 2025:UHC:7113 5 to expunge paragraph 25 of the judgment and order dated 13.11.2013 in S.T. No. 32 of 2013 Sate of Uttarakhand v. Dinesh Lal, insofar as, it pertains to the applicant. Accordingly, the paragraph no.25 of the judgment dated 13.11.2013 is hereby expunged. 8. The Criminal Misc. Application stands disposed of, accordingly. (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 12.08.2025 BS