A single judge bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior held that, a false Statement which doesn’t affect the outcome of case can’t invoke 340 CrPC proceedings.
Kamla Sharma and Ors Vs Sukhdevlal and Ors on 18 Apr 2022Citations :
Other Sources :
2-Judge bench held that without prima facie opinion in a complaint made otherwise than a police complaint, invoking of perjury u/s 340 CrPC or 341 CrPC is indefensible.
From Para 58,
58. We are thus of the firm opinion that a Trial Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint under Section 340 and/or Section 341 of the Code, if there is a preliminary inquiry and adequate materials in support of the considerations impelling action under the above provisions are available, would be required to treat such complaint to constitute a case, as if instituted on police report and proceed in accordance with law. However, in absence of any preliminary inquiry or adequate materials, it would be open for the Trial Magistrate, if he genuinely feels it necessary, in the interest of justice and to avoid unmerited prosecution to embark on a summary inquiry to collect further materials and then decide the future course of action as per law. In both the eventualities, the Trial Magistrate has to be cautious, circumspect, rational, objective and further informed with the overwhelming caveat that the offence alleged is one affecting the administration of justice, requiring a responsible, uncompromising and committed approach to the issue referred to him for inquiry and trial, as the case may be. In no case, however, in the teeth of Section 343(1), the procedure prescribed for cases instituted otherwise than on police report would either be relevant or applicable qua the complaints under Section 340 and/or 341 of the Cr.P.C.
And from Final Para,
State Of Goa Vs Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales on 18 Aug 201760. In view of the determination as above, the approach of the High Court is wholly indefensible, as in the face of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C., the procedure prescribed for cases instituted otherwise than on police report is not attracted qua a complaint under Section 340 and/or Section 341 of the Code. Even assuming that the Trial Magistrate had examined few witnesses in support of the complaint, it was in the form of a summary inquiry, to be satisfied as to whether the materials on record would justify the framing of charge against the respondent or not and nothing further. Any other view would fly in the face of the ordainment of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C. and thus cannot receive judicial imprimatur. The impugned judgment of the High Court in quashing the charge framed by the Trial Magistrate and remanding the case to him to follow the procedure outlined for cases, instituted otherwise than on police report, under Chapter XIX-B is on the face of it unsustainable in law and on facts. It is thus set aside. The appeals are allowed. The Trial Magistrate would proceed from the stage of framing of charge, strictly in compliance of the letter and spirit of the precept contained in Section 343(1) of the Code. We make it clear that we have not offered any observation on the merits of the charge and the Trial Court would further the proceedings in accordance with law.
Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1021], [2017 ALLCC 101 330], [2017 CCR SC 4 28], [2017 JCC 4 2245], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 3 981], [2017 SCALE 9 527], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1021]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194410529/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a65cbaf4a93263320778706
Index of Perjury Case laws is here.
See Supreme Court deprecated the unethical practice of State Government of Andhra Pradesh in this Order… Hehehe
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs M Srinivasa Rao on 28 August 2020State of Andhra Pradesh does it again! The incorrigible inefficiency in filing appeal is apparent from page 78 where the present special leave petition has been filed after a delay of 455 days. In view of Post Master General & Ors. v. Living Media India Ltd. & Anr.reported in (2012) 3 SCC 563 there are no more acceptable excuses. These are matters brought before the Court only to obtain a certificate of dismissal to put a quietus to the matter. We strongly deprecate the same.
The earlier judgment from erstwhile High Court of AP.
M.Srinivasa Rao Vs The State of A.P. on 28 August 2018A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.
In this case on perjury in a false 498A case, husband made allegations on knife, in this anticipatory bail application. Justice RF Nariman had set aside the Previous order for Perjury from Bombay HC here.
Aarish Asgar Qureshi Vs Fareed Ahmed Qureshi 26 February, 2019
Interesting case under CrPC 341 (Appeal on CrPC 340 dismissal) here from District Court of Delhi. It was held that, the administration of justice would not have been affected even though there was concealment of material fact.
From Para 18,
Secondly, it was submitted that in the present case, no interim order was passed by the ld. Trial court in favour of the respondent, believing the averments made in para 1(k) of the application.
From Para 30,
Vikash Gupta vs Deep Mala Gupta on 29 November, 2017Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the administration of justice with regard to grant of maintenance to the respondent/wife would not have been affected despite there being concealment of facts in para 1(k) of the application filed by the respondent as there was other material on record filed by the respondent in the nature of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand’s order dated 04.12.2008, admission made in the rejoinder regarding receipt of subsistence allowance and the evidence by affidavit being there on record admitting claiming of subsistence allowance from the appellant.
Bad Behavior has blocked 373 access attempts in the last 7 days.
