Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

26. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that two issues arise for the consideration of this Court. They are:

1. The question of compensation under prayer (iii) of the writ petition; and

2. The question of making a complaint under Section 340 CrPC in respect of the fake birth certificate of Shamim.

27. We shall take up consideration of the second issue, i.e., the issue of inquiry under Section 340 CrPC, first.

The issue of initiation of inquiry under section 340 CrPC:

28. Ms Nitya Ramakrishnan straightway drew our attention to Section 340 CrPC which reads as under:-

―340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. - (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, -

32. She submitted that in any event, it would also have to be considered whether it is at all expedient in the interest of justice for this Court to make a complaint under Section 340 CrPC. It was submitted that the Court will not make a complaint unless it has a direct bearing on the administration of justice. She placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah and Another v. Minakshi Marwahand Another:

(2005) 4 SCC 370 wherein the expression ―Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice‖ appearing in Section 340 CrPC was considered and the Supreme Court took the view that this expression indicated that the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to Section 195(1)(b) CrPC but that such a course is to be adopted only if it is required in the interest of justice. The expediency is to be judged by the Court not by considering the magnitude of injury suffered by a person affected by perjury or a forged document but by having regard to the effect such commission of offence has on the administration of justice. The Supreme Court observed that it was quite possible that a forged document may cause a very serious and substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. The Supreme Court, therefore, observed that in such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint.

43. Looked at from this stand point also, there was nothing to be gained by the petitioner by submitting the said birth certificate had she known or believed the same to be fake or forged. It is obvious that the present case is not one of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and consequently as indicated in S.P. Kohli (supra) the provisions of Section 340 CrPC are not attracted. We have already noticed the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), where the Supreme Court pointed out that Section 340 CrPC is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice". Such expediency, as pointed out by the Supreme Court, is not to be judged by considering the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by the perjury or forged document but by having regard to the effect such commission of perjury has on the administration of justice. In the present case, first of all, no injury has been suffered by any person by the filing of the said birth certificate. This is so because, even de hors the said birth certificate, Shamim's age as on 25.5.2008 would be 13-14 years, based on the records of the respondents themselves. Furthermore, the question as to whether Shamim is or is not an Indian national is irrelevant for the purposes of the present case. And, secondly, insofar as the administration of justice is concerned, the submission of the said certificate had a minimal impact thereon, if at all.