A division bench of Apex Court held that Perjury cannot be pursued via a private complaint.
From para 16, [Purpose of 340 CrPC]
16. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. makes it clear that a prosecution under this Section can be initiated only by the sanction of the court under whose proceedings an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) has allegedly been committed. The object of this Section is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in relation to any document produced or given in evidence in court during the time when the document or evidence was in custodia legis and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action. The court shall not only consider prima facie case but also see whether it is in or against public interest to allow a criminal proceeding to be instituted.
From Para 18 [Talks about the landmark Santohk Singh decision]
Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Bihar on 4 Feb 201918. In Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Anr., (1973) 2 SCC 406, this Court has held that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify the feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its
very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution.
Citations :
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/37083044/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c59bac09eff4333856aec6c
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sh-narendra-kumar-srivastava-versus-the-state-of-bihar-ors
