IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
Subham Roy Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Sreejoyee Chakraborty – Respondent
C.R.A 687 of 2017 With C.R.A 452 of 2018 With CRR 341 of 2019
Decided on : 11-04-2023
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 193 and 195(1)(b) - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - Section 340 and 341 - Cognizance of commission of offence - Matrimonial suit - Whether a party to a proceeding makes a false statement in her petition or not cannot be decided without taking evidence before adjudicating case - Held, From principles enunciated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in series of decisions some of which are quoted above it is ascertained that an application for committing offence Section 191 of Cr.P.C is to be filed by the court before whom false statement has been made - A private party cannot file a complaint alleging commission of offence punishable Section 193 of IPC - Secondly Before lodging a complaint the court must come to a decision that defendant/respondent has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of judicial proceeding or fabricated false evidence for purpose of using same at any stage of judicial proceeding - Thirdly As a natural consequence there of Magistrate or Judge in whose court’s applications Section 125 of Cr.P.C and Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act respectively are pending shall have to come to a decision that respondent has made false statement in course of judicial proceeding for purpose of using the same in said proceeding - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.
1. CRA 687 of 2017 is an appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure assailing an order dated 27th October, 2017 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Alipore in Perjury Case No. Misc 26 of 2016. The learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Alipore summarily rejected the application filed by the appellant/petitioner under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C read with Section 195(1)(b) of the IPC ignoring the guidelines given by this Court in its order dated 12th October, 2017 in CRR No.3384 of 2017.
2. CRR 452 of 2018 is an appeal against the order dated 1st August, 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Barrackpore in M Case No.515 of 2016 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C rejecting an application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C filed by the appellant herein and thereby refusing to take cognizance of commission of offence under Section 193 of the IPC.
3. CRR 341 of 2019 is a revision under Section 397 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C assailing an order dated 18th December, 2018 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Alipore rejecting an application filed by the petitioner under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C.
4. The Above mentioned two appeals and the revision were heard together by this Court and this Court disposes of above numbered two appeals and the revision by a common and composite order as follows:-
5. At the outset, it is required to state brief outline of the incidents which put the party’s series of litigations.
6. Subham Roy Choudhury and Sreejoyee Chakraborty are legally married husband and wife. It is not in dispute that their marriage was solemnized on 22nd February, 2016. After five days of marriage the respondent/wife went back to her paternal home for some medical tests. The appellant and his family members came to know subsequently that the respondent has been suffering from Relapsed ITP Post Splenectomy (advance stage of cancer) for nine years prior to marriage. When the appellant came to know about the said fact, he filed a suit for annulment of marriage in the court of the learned District Judge at Alipore which was registered as Mat Suit No.42 of 2016. The said suit is pending before the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Court at Alipore, South 24 Parganas.
7. The respondent/wife made her appearance in the said matrimonial suit and filed an application claiming alimony pendente lite which was registered as Misc Case No.21 of 2016. It is contended by the appellant that the said application was filed making false and fabricated statement and allegations of criminal nature against the appellant and his old parents on affidavit. According to the appellant filing of the said application on affidavit containing false and frivolous allegations against the appellant and his parents amount to offence under Section 191 of the IPC punishable under Section 193 of the IPC. Accordingly the appellant filed an application in the trial court under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The said application was registered as Misc Case No.26 of 2016. It was contended by the appellant that the petition for alimony pendente lite contained deliberate and conscious false statement. Secondly, such statements were made by the respondent for wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the appellant and her parents and the allegations being criminal in nature, the trial court ought to have proceeded to hear out Misc Case No.26 of 2016 in accordance with the provision under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
8. The above named appellant has filed CRA No.452 of 2018 under Section 341 of the Cr.P.C assailing the order dated 1st August, 2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Court at Barrackpore in M Case No.515 of 2016 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C thereby rejecting the another application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C filed by the appellant.
9. In the memorandum of appeal it is stated by the appellant that the respondent herein filed an
Amarsang Nathaji vs. Haardik Harshadbhai Patel & Ors. reported in (2017) 1 SCC 113
K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India [K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India
Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 370
Judicial discretion under Section 340 of the CrPC requires significant evidence of falsehood and must not serve personal grievances, but rather ensure expedience in justice.
Prosecution for perjury in matrimonial disputes requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood and must be deemed expedient in the interest of justice.
Prosecution for perjury under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires prima facie evidence and expediency in the interest of justice, particularly when considering delays and motivations behind complaints.
The court ruled that initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C requires clear evidence of falsehood that impacts judicial proceedings, not mere inaccuracies.
A court cannot initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against a person for making a false statement in an affidavit if the person did not obtain any relief from the ....
Inaccuracies in statements do not constitute perjury; deliberate falsehood and mens rea must be established for action under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.