Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Posted on October 25, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Family Court judge at Bandra, Mumbai passed order to initiate perjury proceedings against lying knife.

From Para 16,

16. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must do equity. The fraud and justice cannot dwell together. The justice seeker must step in the Court with clean hands. The dishonest person cannot be entertained by the Court of law. In matrimonial matters persons come with their family problems before the Court and Court makes every possible attempt to find out solution of their problems. In such circumstances, it is the first and foremost responsibility of the party to tell the truth to the Court, so that Court can go to the root of the matter to solve the real dispute. There should not be game of hide and seek when justice is sought from the Court of law. All the Dharmashastras teach us “सतय ं वदं” “Tell the truth”. Foundation of every case must be on true and honest disclosure of facts. No place can be given to lies or falsehood during the course of administration of justice. The person who comes to the Court i.e. house of justice, to seek justice, has to show his bonafides and honesty by making true disclosure of the facts within his knowledge.

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Posted on October 6, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of PHHC held as follows:

From Paras 11-14,

11. As per the settled proposition of law as enumerated hereinabove, proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. are not to be initiated in every case where offences are purportedly made out. In fact, the said proceedings are to be initiated only in a situation, where the Court considers it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. This shows that such a course of filing a complaint will only be adopted, if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. In the present case, no such finding has been recorded, as has already been mentioned above and even otherwise, the dispute is between the parties, who are closely related being brothers.
12. In fact, one of the criteria for proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. would be where due to the false statement, one party has succeeded in getting a favourable order, which otherwise, he would not have got. Therefore, if the false statement affects the very nature of the order passed by the Court, then, that itself can be one of the circumstances, where proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. ought to be initiated. In the present case, assuming that a false statement had been made either in the written statement or by virtue of filing of affidavits, those pleadings/averments did not affect the fate of the case. In fact the petitioner did obtain a decree in his favour. Therefore, there is no apparent illegality in the orders dated 09.10.2015 (Annexure P-1) and 08.02.2017 (Annexure P-2).
13. Having examined the matter in its entirety, I also find that the dispute in question is between close relatives. Certain pleadings are filed in civil/criminal proceedings and the defendants in a civil proceeding take their defence, which in the present case was denying the right of ownership of the petitioner-complainant. Every person has a right to defend his case and he can take many defence pleas. Taking up a plea by itself would not amount to giving false evidence. Further, in the present case, in view of the discussion above, it would certainly not be expedient in the interest of justice to proceed against the respondents.
14. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned hereinabove as also the relationship between the parties and the civil proceedings having culminated in favour of the petitioner, as such no advantage has been taken by the respondents by virtue of their allegedly false pleadings/affidavits. Therefore, it would certainly not be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

Index of Perjury cases here.

S.Mukanchand Bothra Vs Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable Trust Chennai and Ors on 22 December, 2015

Posted on February 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Distinguishing the law laid down by Apex Court in Perumal Vs Janaki, Single Judge bench of Madras High Court held that, Investigating officers can not be made liable for perjury (filing false affidavits) in cases where accused was acquitted after trial.

S.Mukanchand Bothra Vs Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable Trust Chennai and Ors on 22 Dec 2015

Citations : [2015 SCC ONLINE MAD 11421]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139009470/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e0c8e561092708a3b8c4

https://www.legitquest.com/case/s-mukanchand-bothra-v-rajiv-gandhi-memorial-educational-charitable-trust-chennai-others/973BF

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973

Posted on February 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A 2-judge bench of Apex Court held that, in this particular case, the Police officer can not be saddled with IPC 211 and prosecuted u/s 340 CrPC read with 195 CrPC. But the necessary ingredients are clearly articulated and hence this case law has to be relied upon as landmark judgment to file perjury against the person who made the false complaint (FIR need not be registered).

From Para 8,

8. In this Court, Shri Gupta has very forcefully contended that on the material on the record this direction is wholly unjustified, if not positively illegal, being based on misreading of evidence and on erroneous view of law. According to the submission, the appellant had neither lodged the FIR nor otherwise instituted any criminal proceeding or falsely charged Izhar Hussain within the contemplation of Section 211 IPC. Besides, there is absolutely no material on the record on which the High Court could have formed an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that a complaint under Section 211 IPC should be filed against the appellant.

From Para 10,

… The short question posed, therefore, is, if by giving false evidence as a witness against Izhar Hussain the appellant can be said to have charged him within the contemplation of Section 211 IPC. If this question is answered in the affirmative, then it will have to be determined whether there is in fact a false accusation and finally whether it is expedient in the interest of justice on the facts and circumstances of the present case to direct a complaint to be filed under Section 211 IPC. This section as its marginal note indicates renders punishable false charge of offence with intent to injure. The essential ingredient of an offence under Section 211 IPC is to institute or cause to be instituted any criminal proceeding against a person with intent to cause him injury or with similar intent to falsely charge any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge. Instituting or causing to institute false criminal proceedings assume false charge but false charge may be preferred even when no criminal proceedings result. It is frankly conceded by Shri Kohli that the appellant cannot be said to have instituted any criminal proceeding against any person. So that part of Section 211 IPC is eliminated. Now, the expression “falsely charges” in this section, in our opinion, cannot mean giving false evidence as a prosecution witness against an accused person during the course of a criminal trial. To “falsely charge” must refer to the original or initial accusation putting or seeking to put in motion the machinery of criminal investigation and not when speaking to prove the false charge by making deposition in support of the charge framed in that trial. The words “falsely charges” have to be read along with the expression “institution of criminal proceeding”. Both these expressions, being susceptible of analogous meaning should be understood to have been used in their cognate sense. They get as it were their colour and content from each other. They seem to have been used in a technical sense as commonly understood in our criminal law. The false charge must, therefore, be made initially to a person in authority or to someone who is in a position to get the offender punished by appropriate proceedings. In other words, it must be embodied either in a complaint or in a report of a cognizable offence to the police officer or an officer having authority over the person against whom the allegations are made. The statement in order to constitute the “charge” should be made with the intention and object of setting criminal law in motion. Statement on oath falsely supporting the prosecution case against an accused person more appropriately amounts to an offence under Sections 193 and 195 IPC and not under Section 211 IPC. We do not think that the offences contemplated by Sections 193/195 IPC on the one hand and Section 211 IPC on the other were intended by the legislature in this context, to overlap so as to make it optional whether to proceed under one or the other. ..…

From Para 11,

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 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.

Original:

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973 (SCI)

Casemine Version.

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973

Citations : [1973 AIR SC 2190], [1974 BLJR 22 877], [1973 SCC 2 406], [1974 SCR 1 78], [1973 CAR 316], [1973 CRLR SC 473], [1973 SCC CR 828], [1973 SCC CRI 828], [1973 CRLJ SC 1176]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/56524/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab94e4b014971140cd11

CrPC 164 – Recording of confessions and statements

Posted on January 11, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Any Metropolitan Magistrate or Judicial Magistrate may, whether or not he has jurisdiction in the case, record any confession or statement made to him in the course of an investigation under this Chapter or under any other law for the time being in force, or at any time afterwards before the commencement of the inquiry or trial:
Provided that any confession or statement made under this sub-section may also be recorded by audio-video electronic means in the presence of the advocate of the person accused of an offence:
Provided further that no confession shall be recorded by a police officer on whom any power of a Magistrate has been conferred under any law for the time being in force.
(2) The Magistrate shall, before recording any such confession, explain to the person making it that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, it may be used as evidence against him; and the Magistrate shall not record any such confession unless, upon questioning the person making it, he has reason to believe that it is being made voluntarily.
(3) If at any time before the confession is recorded, the person appearing before the Magistrate states that he is not willing to make the confession, the Magistrate shall not authorise the detention of such person in police custody.
(4) Any such confession shall be recorded in the manner provided in section 281 for recording the examination of an accused person and shall be signed by the person making the confession; and the Magistrate shall make a memorandum at the foot of such record to the following effect:—
“I have explained to (name) that he is not bound to make a confession and that, if he does so, any confession he may make may be used as evidence against him and I believe that this confession was voluntarily made. It was taken in my presence and hearing, and was read over to the person making it and admitted by him to be correct, and it contains a full and true account of the statement made by him.
(Signed) A. B.
Magistrate.”
(5) Any statement (other than a confession) made under sub-section (1) shall be recorded in such manner hereinafter provided for the recording of evidence as is, in the opinion of the Magistrate, best fitted to the circumstances of the case; and the Magistrate shall have power to administer oath to the person whose statement is so recorded.
(5A) (a) In cases punishable under section 354, section 354A, section 354B, section 354C, section 354D, subsection (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), the Judicial Magistrate shall record the statement of the person against whom such offence has been committed in the manner prescribed in sub-section (5), as soon as the commission of the offence is brought to the notice of the police:
Provided that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the Magistrate shall take the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator in recording the statement:
Provided further that if the person making the statement is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, the statement made by the person, with the assistance of an interpreter or a special educator, shall be videographed.
(b) A statement recorded under clause (a) of a person, who is temporarily or permanently mentally or physically disabled, shall be considered a statement in lieu of examination-in-chief, as specified in section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) such that the maker of the statement can be cross-examined on such statement, without the need for recording the same at the time of trial.
(6) The Magistrate recording a confession or statement under this section shall forward it to the Magistrate by whom the case is to be inquired into or tried.

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

Posted on October 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Since there was 1 judgment from a 3-judge bench of Supreme Court which said Preliminary Inquiry is mandatory u/s 340 CrPC, the 2-judge bench in this case, referred this point to a Larger bench.

From Para 14,

14. In any event, given that the decision of the three-Judge Bench in Sharad Pawar (supra) did not assign any reason as to why it was departing from the opinion expressed by a Coordinate Bench in Pritish (supra) regarding the necessity of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC, as also the observations made by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), we find it necessary that the present matter be placed before a larger Bench for its consideration, particularly to answer the following questions:
(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court?
(ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?
15. Accordingly, we direct the Registry to place the papers before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

This was answered by a three-judge bench as follows:

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 15 Sep 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Posted on October 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Citing Iqbal Marwah here and other landmark case laws, Supreme Court says,

From Para 10,

10. It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint. It is not necessary that the court must use the actual words of Section 340 Cr.P.C.; but the court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. Observing that under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not on mere allegations or to vindicate personal vendetta,

From Para 11,

11. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., the court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of justice”. The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. It has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the present case whether any prima facie case is made out for forgery or making a forged document warranting issuance of directions for lodging the complaint under Section 193, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

From Para 19,

19. Even assuming that the version in the vakalatnama is wrong, mere incorrect statement in the vakalatnama would not amount to create a forged document and it cannot be the reason for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for issuance of direction to lodge the criminal complaint against the appellants.

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

Citations : [2019 SCC 6 477], [2019 SCC CRI 2 826], [2019 SCC ONLINE SC 664], [AIR 2019 SC 2280], [2019 (2) Crimes 279], [2019 (7) Scale 559], [2019 CriLJ 2896], [2019 CrLJ 2896], [2019 (3) JLJR 122], [2019 (3) PLJR 122]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150953328/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5cd3c6064a932660042c22f2

Sasikala Pushpa v. State of Tamil Nadu

Index of Perjury case laws is here.

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Posted on September 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that for offences under 191 and 192 IPC, procedure under 340 CrPC has to be followed and perjury application for such offences cannot be turned into private complaints under 190 CrPC.

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141105348/

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13132

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/m-s-bandekar-brothers-pvt-ltd-anr-versus-prasad-vassudev-keni-etc-etc

Index of Perjury case laws is here.

Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014

Posted on April 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Justice Jasti Chalameswar on the Supervisory Authority of High Courts on Lower Courts in a state and how and why it should have been invoked in this case gainfully. If not under 193 IPC, invocation of 211 IPC was very much desirable in this case.

Another observation is that one can file Perjury under section 340 CrPC even after getting acquittal.

Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014

Citations : [2015 NCC 1 678], [2014 SCC 5 377], [2014 SCC CRI 2 591], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 46], [2014 CTC 1 664], [2014 AIC 135 224], [2014 AIOL 32], [2014 AIR SC 993], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 2 70], [2014 CRLJ SC 1454], [2014 JT 2 180], [2014 SCALE 1 406], [2014 SLT 1 680], [2014 KLJ 1 688], [2014 AICLR 1 828], [2014 MLJ CRI 1 505], [2014 RAJ 1 30], [2014 SCJ 3 152], [2014 LW CRL 1 793], [2014 KCCR SN 3 166], [2014 AIR SCW 993], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 851], [2014 CUT LT 118 22]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25369927/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af43e4b0149711415fb6

Rajkumar Indoria Vs NCT Of Delhi, New Delhi on 18 August, 2010

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Rajkumar Indoria Vs NCT Of Delhi, New Delhi on 18 August, 2010

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55726215/

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Nachhattar Singh Vs Rai Singh and Anr on 28 Jul 2022

S.Mukanchand Bothra Vs Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Educational Charitable Trust Chennai and Ors on 22 December, 2015

Santokh Singh Vs Izhar Hussain and Anr on 25 Apr 1973

CrPC 164 – Recording of confessions and statements

State of Punjab Vs Jasbir Singh on 26 Feb 2020

Sasikala Pushpa and Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 07 May 2019

MS Bandekar Brothers Pvt Ltd and Anr Vs Prasad Vassudev Keni on 2 September 2020

Perumal Vs Janaki on 20 January, 2014

Rajkumar Indoria Vs NCT Of Delhi, New Delhi on 18 August, 2010