The main legal point established in the judgment is that for action under Section 340 Cr.PC, there must be a finding of deliberate falsehood with oblique purposes, and the court's decision should be guided by the larger interest of the administration of justice.

S.K. Kar, J.

1. This is an appeal Under Section 341 Cr.PC preferred by Shri Om Prakash Bharuka, appellant herein against respondent Nos. 1 and 2, respondent 1 being his wife (since divorced). The appellant has assailed the order dated 30.11.1993 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Dibrugarh in Misc. (J) Case No. 96/92 arising out of the Title (Divorce) Suit No. 8/88 on the grounds, inter alia, that the court below failed to take note of the primary object of the proceeding Under Section 340 Cr.PC which is meant for the purpose of curbing the evil of perjury. That the false evidence given by the respondents/O.P. were pinpointed with utmost precision and the court below ought to have instituted a complaint against the respondents. That the respondents/O.P. used the court as a tool to further their petty selfish interest whereby the appellant was seriously prejudiced. That the provisions of Section 340 Cr.PC is meant for larger interest of administration of justice and the court below ought to have taken appropriate action to punish the respondents/O.P. for taking recourse to perjury by deliberate and conscious act.

2. The appeal is a long pending one and none appears for the appellant when the case is taken up for hearing. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respondents/O.P. 1 and 2.

3. Respondents 1 and 2 had earlier submitted separately their written arguments in this appeal, I have gone through the written arguments so filed.

4. Section 340 is the first section coming under Chapter XXVI dealing with 'provisions as to offence affecting the administration of justice' and it goes as follows :

"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 is it expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence, referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of 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, -

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate,

(2) The power conferred on a Court by Sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that court has neither made a complaint under Sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section195.

(3) .....

(4)......"

Section 341 Cr.PC provides for filing an appeal to next higher court to which the former court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-section (4) of Section 195 and appropriate order will be passed by the appellate court as per provisions of Section 341.

5. Before entering into the merit of the present appeal let us note the background of the case. Respondent 1 was married to the appellant on 16.7.1975 at Dibrugarh according to Hindu rites and rituals. Out of the wedlock three children were born. Respondent No. 1 filed a divorce suit on 28.3.1988 being Title (Divorce) Suit No. 12/1988 in that court of District Judge, Dibrugarh against the appellant mainly on the ground of cruelty and also prayed for custody of three children, 'stridhan' (woman's property) along with other reliefs. The appellant filed a petition before the Supreme Court for transfer of the case but the Hon'ble Supreme Court refused to interfere. Thereafter, the appellant a