This is a facepalm experience for the ADJ who said that,
“Mere recording of a finding to the effect that an offence punishable under section 193 of the Penal Code was committed would not answer requirement of section 340 of the Code. When primary question was answered in affirmative then secondary and most effective proposition was to be answered to the effect whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an action in the matter. No such step was taken by the Trial Court to see that it was expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. In such a situation, order impugned is shrouded with illegality. In cannot be allowed to stand.”
For which, the High Court of Delhi gave a befitting answer, such as from Para 18,
In the considered view of this Court, when the learned MM in the order dated 9th September 2005 observed “I am, therefore, of the opinion that Smt. Veena has committed an offence under Section 193 IPC and she ought to be prosecuted for the same”, the requirement of Section 340 CrPC as explained by the Supreme Court stood satisfied. In other words, the opinion formed by learned MM was obviously only a tentative or a prima facie one. This is plain from the expression “ought to be prosecuted”. Further, the same expression “ought to be prosecuted” also indicates the formation of an opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that Respondent No.2 should be prosecuted. Therefore, both the requirements of law as explained by the Supreme Court in relation to Section 340 CrPC stood completely satisfied by the order dated 9th September 2005 passed by the learned MM. This Court is, therefore, unable to agree with the conclusion reached by learned ASJ to the contrary.
A fine of Rs.40,000/- was levied on the pejurer for lying repeatedly on affidavits as well as under oath by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.
In this order from Allahabad High Court, the knife challenges the order of levying a fine of Rs.10,000/- for perjury (Lying that she is not working in DPS). The orders of perjury are stayed until the objections are resolved.
It has been argued by Mr. Tripathi that under the provisions of Section 340, Cr.P.C. the court can make only preliminary inquiry and the final order which may be in the form of imposing fine can be passed by the court of competent jurisdiction and the court of competent jurisdiction would be that court in which the complaint would be filed by the court in which the perjury was committed. The court which made the preliminary inquiry had no jurisdiction to finally conclude the matter and impose the fine, therefore, the order dated 15.7.09 is bad and is liable to be quashed. Regarding the order dated 7.10.09 it was argued by Mr. Tripathi that once a wrong order was passed by the court on 15.7.09 it should have been reviewed and when it was not reviewed, hence, the order dated 7.10.09 is also bad and is liable to be quashed.
In this judgment from High Court of Punjab and Haryana, it was held that despite entering remarks in his judgment to the effect that perjury happened, the Dayaalu magistrate does not want to initiate any such proceedings of Perjury on the knife.
From second para,
While deciding the main petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment it has been observed that “in support of her claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent/applicant had made certain assertions, which were found to be totally false and the same had apparently been done by her in a deliberate manner. Consequently even an application for initiating suitable proceedings against her on account of her having submitted a false affidavit was also filed by the petitioner on 3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did not press her claim for interim maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the liability of the aforesaid lapse. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner or later, the parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways in a peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the above false affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent.“
High Court has taken the magistrate to task and said that,
Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating, forging and perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal.
And further said that,
A glance through the impugned order would reveal that the learned trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome and is depreciable. The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether the application has been dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1512317/
Bombay High Court in this judgment has ordered the lower court to dispose of Perjury application in two months. Effectively, asking it to stay the main application and dispose perjury application first.
This is the grand old daddy judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, which says deal with perjury first.
From Para 15, the 5-judge bench of Supreme Court held as follows,
15. As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal courts is a relevant consideration. The law envisages such an eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or damages. The only relevant consideration here is the likelihood of embarrassment.
From Para 16, reason for disposing of perjury (a criminal offence first) given,
16. Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty should be punished while the events are still fresh in the public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till memories have grown too dim to trust. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special considerations obtaining in any particular case might make some other course more expedient and just. For example, the civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give precedence to a prosecution ordered under Section 476. But in this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.
From the final Para 17, wherein the 4 ongoing Civil suits are stayed and the criminal prosecution u/s 193 IPC was allowed to go ahead.
The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed but with no order about costs. Civil Suits Nos. 311 of 1951 to 314 of 1951, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, will be stayed till the conclusion of the prosecution under section 193, Indian Penal Code. As the plaintiffs there are parties here, there is no difficulty about making such an order.
Equivalent citations: [1954 SCR 1229], [1954 AIR SC 397], [1954 CRILJ 1019], [1954 LW 67 625], [1954 SCR 1 1144]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/500548/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aaf2e4b014971140b4db
Index of all Perjury case laws is here.
In this judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held that, not every allegation made justify initiation of proceedings under 340 CrPC. There should be another criteria met, which is, that the initiation of 340 CrPC proceedings should be expedient in the interests of justice.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55726215/
Hon’ble Delhi High Court has prescribed the format for the affidavit that all parties of matrimonial cases have to file, so that the disposal can happen in 60 days as mandated by the Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
From Para 24,
This Court is of the view that filing of affidavit of assets, income, expenditure and liabilities by both the parties in the prescribed format at the very threshold of matrimonial litigation as in developed countries would enable the Courts to pass maintenance order within 60 days in terms of Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore should be incorporated in all the matrimonial statutes.
Note: Those intending to seek info from OP (in civil cases like DV, HMA24), can make use of *Interrogatories*… Page 42, Para 19.14 on this judgment.
The appellant Kusum Sharma has expired on 26th September, 2016 and her legal representatives (Mr. Rishi Vashisht, son and Ms. Geetika Kapoor, daughter of the parties) informed Hon’ble Court that they are not interested to pursue this appeal via an Affidavit.
On 29 May, 2017, based on inputs and suggestions from some Family courts, further modifications are made to the prescribed format of the affidavit that all parties of matrimonial cases should file.
On 6 December, 2017, based on inputs and suggestions from some Family courts, further modifications are made to the prescribed format of the affidavit that all parties of matrimonial cases should file.
Citations: [2018(246) DLT 1]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a65cbb74a9326332077aaa3
The Case Index is available here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 325 access attempts in the last 7 days.
