The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of an inquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. before initiating criminal proceedings against witnesses for giving false evidence, emphasizing the importance of following the prescribed procedure and conducting a thorough examination of witnesses' statements before concluding on perjury charges.

RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Addl. P.P., Assam representing the State respondent No.1 and Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2.

2. The petitioner herein has been arrayed as one of the accused in the Sessions Case No.50(T)/2015, pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia. The case is at the hearing stage, after framing of charge.

3. During the course of hearing, two witnesses were examined by the prosecution on 05.05.2016 out of 16 witnesses (PW.1, Smti Jugo Verma and PW.2, Smti Mamon Verma) who turned hostile and they have denied their statement before the I.O. as well as the Magistrate. Persuaded by the fact that these witnesses have given false evidence by deviating from their earlier statement, the learned trial Court by its order dated 05.05.2016, directed the Sheristader of the establishment of District & Sessions Judge, Tinsukia to file a complaint against both the witnesses, under Section 193 of the IPC, by holding that "it transpires that both the witnesses are giving false evidence in the court, which is punishable u/s.193 of I.P.C.".

4. Now assailing the aforesaid order, one of the accused of Sessions Case No.50(T)/2015/present petitioner has turned up before this Court with the present petition challenging the aforesaid order under Section 482 read with Section 483 Cr.P.C., for quashing the order on the twin grounds: firstly that the learned trial Court has not at all adhered to the prescribed procedure while initiating such criminal proceeding against the witnesses and secondly, the Court has not conducted any inquiry as provided under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C, prior to initiation of such criminal proceeding, as mandated under the law and ultimately the petitioner will be prejudiced if the case ended against him by relying upon such evidence at the conclusion of the trial. Accordingly prayer has been made to quash the aforesaid order in the interest of justice.

5. I have gone through the impugned order so passed by this Court and considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State respondent and respondent No.2, the informant.

6. According to both the respondents, there is no illegality in the order as the witnesses apparently has raised from their earlier evidence made before the Court as well as before the I.O. and it has also been pointed out that the aforesaid witnesses against whom such criminal proceeding is contemplated are not before this Court and the question of prejudice by the accused/petitioner is merely an apprehension, in a reality.

7. On the other hand, Mr. A.M. Bora, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued before this Court that such an order which is palpably illegal and has been passed by blatant violation of law and procedure, is not maintainable and it is of no consequence of it is challenged by the present petitioner or by the aggrieved persons (witnesses). It is submitted that the question of prejudice on the part of the accused also come into play, as any decision by the Court on the matter will ultimately affect the status of the accused while arrive at the guilt or innocence in the said case.

8. The provision of Sections 193/195 of the IPC as well as Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. have been elaborated before this Court to submit that to take cognizance of an offence under Section 193 IPC, the enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is mandatory, as cognizance is barred unless such enquiry is conducted. Section 340 Cr.P.C. also prescribe such an enquiry on the part of the Court prior to initiation of such proceeding. It is mentioned that provision of Section 340 Cr.P.C. itself come under the heading of "Provisions as to Affecting the Administration of Justice" and Section 340 speaks about procedure to be maintained in cases mentioned in Section 195 IPC.

9. In s