The cunning knife produced a forged passport and husband exposed her with a RTI response from Passport Authority. And the clever police denied to file a FIR for the forgery complaint!!
Hon’ble Madras High Court ordered the police to file FIR and investigate the case in accordance with law. Awesome !!!
Karthick Vs The Commissioner of Police on 8 July, 2013
Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh has penalized the Writ petitioner as she has lied that she has submitted notarized affidavits but in fact she could not prove that she did. Hence the said affidavits introduced into the Court are termed as false affidavits which contained the false averment/pleading.
Yalala Swapna Vs The Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Mumbai and anr on 09 June, 2009
High Court of Gurajat held in this judgment that, disposal of perjury can be done at the end of a main petition/case but it does not stop magistrate to form an opinion by conducting a preliminary inquiry.
Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation on 26 March, 2012
Bombay High Court has given 1 month imprisonment for a person for giving false evidence in a case. And maximum fine allowed under 344 CrPC, which is paltry Rs.500/- And if Rs.500/- not paid, 1 more week of imprisonment.
Shriram Munjaji Raut Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2011So 1 week of imprisonment = Rs.500/- ???
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,
Jagdish Prasad Vs State and Others on 23 March, 2009In 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.
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.
Garima Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and another on 19 January, 2010It 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,
Sunny Bhumbla Vs Shashi on 25 January, 2010A 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/
This is the grand old daddy judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court, which says deal with perjury first.
M.S.Sheriff Vs The State of Madras and Others on 18 March, 1954The 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.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/500548/
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, 2010Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/55726215/
Calcutta High Court held in this judgment that “CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 is applicable even if evidence is not recorded in a case”.
Arijit Sarkar Vs Monosree Sarkar and Ors on 09 January, 2017