Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)Section 195 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 1 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 193 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah & Anr on 11 March, 2005
In this regard, reference can be made to an authoritative
pronouncement of a Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court, which
had gone into scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C. in case cited as Iqbal Singh
Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another : 2005 (2) RCR
(Criminal) 178. Paragraph No. 23 of this judgment is relevant for the
purpose of this case, which reads as under:
K. Karunakaran vs T. V. Eachara Warrier on 16 November, 1977
10. However, the question that arises for consideration is as to
whether, the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted on account of false plea
so taken by him. For that purpose, in my considered opinion, the learned
Magistrate was still required to form an opinion that it was expedient in the
interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offence of false evidence
while having regard to overall factual matrix as well as probable
consequences of such prosecution. Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon K. Karunakaran vs. T.V. Eachara Warrier and another : (1978)
(1)SCC 18, wherein it was observed that the mere fact that a deponent has
made contradictory statements at two different stages in a judicial
proceedings is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution for a
perjury under Section 193 Cr.P.C. But it must be established that the
deponent has intentionally given a false statement in any stage of the judicial
proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of being used in any
stage of the judicial proceedings and such a prosecution for perjury should
be taken only if it is expedient in the interest of justice.
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 May, 2019
Reliance can further
be placed upon Sasikala Pushpa vs. State of Tamil Nadu : 2019(6)SCC
477, wherein it was held that for prosecution under Section 195 read with
Section 340 Cr.P.C, perjury must be established. It was further observed that
before proceedings to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence
referred to Section 195(1)(b) of 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.
Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Bhanderi vs State Of Gujarat on 27 February, 2023
In Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Bhanderi vs State of Gujarat : Law
Finder Doc Id # 2232945, the High Court of Gujarat had observed that the
object of Section 340 makes it clear that before lodging a complaint, it is
necessary that Court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of
justice to lodge the complaint. The mere fact that a person had made
contradictory statements in a judicial proceeding or a contradictory stand has
been taken during the proceedings, by itself, always would not be sufficient
to justify the prosecution, even if it appears that the proceeding has been
initiated on behalf of a person who alleges that it was not instructed by him,
but if it has been without any criminal intent or when anything has been
brought on record to show that any harm has been caused to him. Merely on
allegations or only to vindicate the personal vendetta, the Court would not
initiate any inquiry unless it comes to the conclusion that it is expedient in
the interest of justice. Unless, it is clearly brought on record that the
prosecution is in the interest of justice, Court cannot contemplate to move
the machinery against any private individual as the foundation of facts are
not prima facie made clear as the very intention of the accused becomes
doubtful.
Chajoo Ram vs Radhey Shyam & Anr on 23 March, 1971
13. On applying the ratio of law, as laid down in the above
discussed authorities, to the present case, I am inclined to hold that no doubt
it stood prima facie established on record that the petitioner had made a false
averment in the form of reply to the effect that the relationship of landlord
and tenant did not exist between the parties though at the relevant time, it
was not so, but, the plea so taken is not of such nature, qua which it can be
considered to be expedient in the interest of justice that the petitioner should
be prosecuted for perjury. Litigation had already been initiated by the
respondent against the petitioner. The inter se grudges between the petitioner
and respondent as such were already there. In my opinion, the proceedings
under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. could not be made as an instrument by the
respondent to satisfy his personal vendetta.