The court has the discretion to initiate an inquiry into an alleged false affidavit under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but it should only do so if it is in the interest of justice.

1. This is an application for sanction for prosecution. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondent herein made false averments in the affidavit affirmed by him on 26th June, 1992.

2. Late Dr. Satish Chandra Sharma died leaving him surviving his widow, two daughters and one son. One of the daughters of Late Dr. Sharma was residing with her husband and children at the house of Late Dr. Sharma until about January 1992. The other daughter was residing at Vishakapattnam. It appears that the son of Late Dr. Sharma was brought up by Late Barindra Kumar Das as his own son. After the death of Late Dr. Sharma the son applied for grant of probate of a Will said to have been made and published by Late Dr. Sharma. In that proceedings the son, the respondent herein, applied for appointing himself as the administrator pendente lite which was contested by the daughter who along with her husband and children resided with Late Dr. Sharma at his house till January 1992, the present applicant. On such contest the said application of the son for appointing himself as administrator pendente lite was dismissed by an Order dated 1st July, 1992.

3. The present application has been made against the son on the ground that be made false averments in the affidavit-in-reply.

4. The case of the applicant may be summarised as follows :-

(I) The respondent has made false averments by denying that be uses a different surname than that of Late Dr. Sharma ;

(II) The respondent has made false averments by denying that the applicant resided with her father along with her husband and children until January 1992 ;

(III) The respondent has made false averments by stating that he never married twice;

(IV) The respondent has made false averments by denying surrender of tenancy and realisation of huge sums of money on that account: and

(V) The respondent falsely represented that the daughter of Late Dr. Sharma who is residing at Vishakapattnam is not residing thereat but at some other place by giving a false address in the cause title.

5. It has been stated that the motive of making the aforesaid false allegations was to show close proximity between Late Dr. Sharma and the respondent, to show that Late Dr. Sharma had no connection with his daughters, to show that the respondent is a responsible person capable of discharging the duties of administrator pendente lite, to dispel the serious allegations made against the character behaviour and activities of the respondent and to suppress the citation to be issued to the other daughter of Late Dr. Sharma.

6. To prove the falsity of such averments the applicant relied on the certificate issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in favour of the respondent, his membership certificate issued by the said Institute, his Identity Card issued by St. Xavier's College, his Life Insurance Policy, his marriage certificate, interest warrants issued in favour of the applicant, Tax Deduction Certificate issued in favour of the applicant, ration cards issued in favour of the applicant and her family members, the agreement of tenancy dated 3rd January, 1992 in respect of the new residence of the applicant, ration cards of the applicant and her family members issued after she shifted to her new residence, AAEI membership card of the husband of the applicant, driving licence of the son of the applicant, saving bank accounts of the applicant and his sons, a marriage certificate of the respondent certified copy of the order dated 26th May, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.9 of 1992, (1) In re: Smt. Sunita Sharma v. Sushil (Das) Sharma & Anr. and certified copy of the order dated 20th May, 1992 passed by the 1st Class Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore in Criminal Case No 856 of 1992. In addition thereto the applicant relied on copy of the agreement dated 28th November, 1991 in regard to surrender of tenancy. The respondent also relied on a notice dated 2nd November