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.
Tag: Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC
Jagdish Prasad Vs State and Others on 23 March, 2009
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,
In 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.
Garima Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and another on 19 January, 2010
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.
It 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.
Sunny Bhumbla Vs Shashi on 25 January, 2010
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,
A 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/
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/
Arijit Sarkar Vs Monosree Sarkar and Ors on 09 January, 2017
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”.
Dhariwal Industries Ltd Vs Kishore Wadhwani on 06 September, 2016
Hon’ble Apex Court held that
In CrPC 301,
The role of the informant or the private party is limited during the prosecution of a case in a Court of Session. The counsel engaged by him is required to act under the directions of public prosecutor.
And, in CrPC 302,
As far as Section 302 CrPC is concerned, power is conferred on the Magistrate to grant permission to the complainant to conduct the prosecution independently.
Rule
when a complainant wants to take the benefit as provided under Section 302 CrPC, he has to file a written application making out a case in terms of J.K. International (supra) so that the Magistrate can exercise the jurisdiction as vested in him and form the requisite opinion.
Union Of India And Ors Vs Haresh Virumal Milani on 11 June, 2018 (Typo Corrected)
This is a correction order (to remove a typo) in the judgment of perjury case available here.
