Hon’ble Apex Court has, in this 341 Appeal, held that it was not expedient in the interest of justice to continue with CrPC 340 proceedings at High Court of Gujarat and moreover it held that lower court has not followed the procedure in making the opinion that it was expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint against respondent no.1 in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 340 of the CrPC.
“6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 178 , 1992 SCC (Cri) 572.) The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.”
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/100876905/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5837160d53bee74f64c25ebd
Merely making contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 IPC
Index of Perjury case laws is here.
Post Views: 579
Shades of Knife
Disclaimer:
The materials provided herein are solely for information purposes. No attorney-client relationship is created when you access or use the site or the materials. The information presented on this site does not constitute legal or professional advice and should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for legal advice from an attorney licensed in your state.
Judgments curated, reproduced from sci.gov.in, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other similar Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in, dcourts.gov.in or any other Government websites such as Gazettes and repositories of Government Orders and Commented in accordance with Section 52(1)(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) and any other applicable public disclosure laws/provisions in India and in various other countries.
I neither have control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in entire form, nor I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Read more gyan here.
Though, I can mask/redact content (like names of parties from cause title) from the Judgments posted on my site, on request for any parties to a case, even though, I am not legally obligated to do so, except for express direction from a Competent Court.
Om Shanthi !!!
Oh, by the way, my competent Legal team delivers time-bound legal reliefs to victims of false family and matrimonial cases at
We are on social media too.
Just google for: Anagha Legal Reliefs
