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.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
M.S.Sheriff Vs The State of Madras and Others on 18 March, 1954
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.
Rajkumar Indoria Vs NCT Of Delhi, New Delhi on 18 August, 2010
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/
Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 14 January 2015
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.
CrPC 408 – Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals
408. Power of Sessions Judge to transfer cases and appeals.
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to a Sessions Judge that an order under this sub- section is expedient for the ends of justice, he may order that any particular case be transferred from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in his sessions division.
(2) The Sessions Judge may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on his own initiative.
(3) The provisions of sub- sections (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) and (9) of section 407 shall apply in relation to an application to the Sessions Judge for an order under sub- section (1) as they apply in relation to an application to the High Court for an order under subsection (1) of section 407, except that sub- section (7) of that section shall so apply as if for the words” one thousand rupees” occurring therein, the words” two hundred and fifty rupees” were substituted.
CrPC 407 – Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals
407. Power of High Court to transfer cases and appeals.
(1) Whenever it is made to appear to the High Court-
(a) that a fair and impartial inquiry or trial cannot be had in any Criminal Court subordinate thereto, or
(b) that some question of law of unusual difficulty is likely to arise, or
(c) that an order under this section is required by any provision of this Code, or will tend to the general convenience of the parties or witnesses, or is expedient for the ends of justice, it may order-
(i) that any offence be inquired into or tried by any Court not qualified under sections 177 to 185 (both inclusive), but in other respects competent to inquire into or try such offence;
(ii) that any particular case or appeal, or class of cases or appeals, be transferred from a Criminal Court subordinate to its authority to any other such Criminal Court of equal or superior jurisdiction;
(iii) that any particular case be committed for trial to a Court of Session; or
(iv) that any particular case or appeal be transferred to and tried before itself.
(2) The High Court may act either on the report of the lower Court, or on the application of a party interested, or on its own initiative: Provided that no application shall lie to the High Court for transferring a case from one Criminal Court to another Criminal Court in the same sessions division, unless an application for such transfer has been made to the Sessions Judge and rejected by him.
(3) Every application for an order under sub- section (1) shall be made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Advocate- General of the State, be supported by affidavit or affirmation.
(4) When such application is made by an accused person, the High Court may direct him to execute a bond, with or without sureties, for the payment of any compensation which the High Court may award under sub- section (7).
(5) Every accused person making such application shall give to the Public Prosecutor notice in writing of the application, together with copy of the grounds on which it is made; and no order shall be made on of the merits of the application unless at least twenty- four hours have elapsed between the giving of such notice and the hearing of the application.
(6) Where the application is for the transfer of a case or appeal from any subordinate Court, the High Court may, if it is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice, order that, pending the disposal of the application, the proceedings in the subordinate Court shall be stayed, on such terms as the High Court may think fit to impose: Provided that such stay shall not affect the subordinate Court’ s power of remand under section 309.
(7) Where an application for an order under sub- section (1) is dismissed, the High Court may, if it is of opinion that the application was frivolous or vexatious, order the applicant to pay by way of compensation to any person who has opposed the application such sum not exceeding one thousand rupees as it may consider proper in the circumstances of the case.
(8) When the High Court orders under sub- section (1) that a case be transferred from any Court for trial before itself, it shall observe in such trial the same procedure which that Court would have observed if the case had not been so transferred.
(9) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to affect any order of Government under section 197.
