Madhya Pradesh High Court
Naklibai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 July, 2017
MCRC-104-2017
(NAKLIBAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
11-07-2017
Shri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Pankaj Ajmera, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Heard finally with consent.
By this petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.4.2016 passed by the Court of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Barwani dismissing the Cr.A. No.74/2015 and affirming the order of the trial Court dated 26.6.2015, by which the petitionerâs application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. was rejected.
In brief, the civil suit being C.S. No.36-A/2006 filed by the petitioner was decreed ex parte on 28.6.2009, therefore, the respondent No.2 had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. The petitioners had filed an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. with the plea that in the application for setting aside of ex parte decree, the respondent No.2 had stated that on 14.1.2009 he had gone to Primary Health Centre, Nagalwadi for the delivery of his daughter- in-law and had also filed the documents and affidavit in support of this plea, whereas the petitioners had filed the birth certificate showing that the child was born on 11.4.2009 and in Ladli Laxmi Scheme also the date of birth of the child is recorded as 11.4.2009, therefore the respondent No.2 had fabricated the document and given false affidavit that the delivery of his daughter-in-law had taken place on 14.1.2009. The petitioner had made a prayer for allowing the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. and registering the offence under Section 191, 192, 197, 200, 420 of the IPC against the respondent No.2 and his witness Prem Singh. The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 25.2.2013 on the ground that such a prayer cannot be granted without examining the evidence in the main case. Thereafter again the application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner on 26.3.2013 which was rejected by the trial Court by order dated 26.6.2015, against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which has been dismissed by the impugned order.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the courts below have rightly noted the factual and legal position while rejecting the petitionerâs application. The appellate court has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of K.T.M.S. Mohd. Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1992 SC 1831, in the matter of Phiroz Vs. Union of India reported in (1996) 8 SCC 209 and in the matter of Iqbal Singh Vs. Meenakshi reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370, wherein it has been held that merely because deponent had made contradictory statements at two different stages in a judicial proceeding, that itself is not always sufficient to justify a prosecution for perjury under Section 193 of the IPC unless the intention to give false evidence is revealed and that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution and further that the court making the original complaint has to be satisfied first that it appears that an offence under Section 195 has been committed and secondly that it is expedient in the interest of justice that the inquiry should be made into such offence.
The courts below have examined the matter in detail and have noted that in the Jachcha Bachcha card (Ex.P/1) the date of birth of the daughter of Laxmibai is recorded as 14.1.2009. It has further been noted that on 28.1.2009 before the court it was informed that on 14.1.2009 a daughter was born to Laxmibai, daughter-in-law of respondent No.2 Pataliya. In this background Ex.D/2 which was produced by the petitioners showing the date of birth of the girl child as 11.4.2009 has been found to be suffering from some possible error. The petitioners have sought the prosecution of the respondent No.2 on the sole ground that he had disclosed incorrect date of birth of the girl child of his daughter-in-law. Since no cogent material was found to be existing in support of the plea of the petitioner and no intention on the part of the respondent No.2 to give the false statement has been found, therefore, the courts below have not committed any error in rejecting the petitionerâs application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
Having regard to the aforesaid, I am of the opinion that in exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. no case for interference in the impugned order is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) JUDGE