IMPORTANT POINTS
The court has necessary discretion in the matter before proposing to proceed under Section 344- The court has to address itself as to whether there is, in fact, any need and expediency in the interest of justice to initiate prosecution and if it appears to the court that the proposed exercise would be meaningless or futile, it would be a ground for declining to exercise jurisdiction- Anyway power of the court in this respect is only discretionary and the same requires to be exercised in accordance with principles of law- The impugned order does not indicate that before initiating prosecution against the petitioner, the court below was satisfied that interest of justice demanded such a course This is another reason that persuades this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

The order under challenge in this proceeding initiated under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure 1993 (for short the Code) is one passed by the Grama Nyayalaya, Kattappana registering M.C No. 11/2018 in ST No. 154/2017 against the petitioner following its decision to proceed against him under Section 344 of the Code.

2. The petitioner is a defence witness in ST.No. 154/2017 examined as DW1 before the Grama Nyayalaya, Kattappana on 04.12.2018. The prosecution case against accused in ST No.154/2017 is that on 16.11.2017 at 5pm, he drove a private Stage Carrier Bus along a place called Puliyanmala causing the death of one Shahina, who was travelling in a scooter driven by her husband.

3. What the accused sought to establish through his defence witness, the petitioner herein, was that the accident was the result of negligence of the scootorist and the petitioner had occasion to witness the true incident since he too was a passenger in the bus.

4. After recording the deposition of the petitioner and also watching his demeanour in the witness box, it appeared to the Grama Nyayalaya that the petitioner was uttering false hood with the sole intention of saving the accused from the clutches of criminal charge. After enumerating the grounds in detail, the Grama Nyayalaya formed an opinion at the end of his examination on the same day itself that the petitioner knowingly and willfully gave false evidence and accordingly ordered to register M.C. No.11/2018 against him in exercise of powers under Section 344 of the Code. It is an admitted fact that trial of ST No.154/2017 is still pending and judgment or final order in the case is yet to be pronounced. Being aggrieved by the action directed against the petitioner, he seeks to quash the order passed by the Grama Nyayalaya on the ground that the same was issued in violation of the principles enshrined in Section 344 of the Code.

5. It was contended that Section 344 of the Code did not permit initiation of proceedings under the said Section otherwise than at the time of delivery of the judgment or final order disposing of a judicial proceeding pending before a court of Session or Magistrate of First Class. The impugned order pronounced is assailed as being too premature enough to form a valid and successful foundation for prosecution of the petitioner under Section 344 of the Code. It was also contended that in any view of the matter, there was dearth of materials sufficient to charge the petitioner with offence of perjury and therefore itself, the order of the court below taking cognizance of offence of perjury against the petitioner is without jurisdiction.

6. Section 344 of the Code reads as follows:-

S. 344. Summary procedure for trial for giving false evidence.-(1) If, at the time of delivery of any judgment or final order disposing of any judicial proceeding, a Court of Session or Magistrate of the first class expresses an opinion to the effect that any witness appearing in such proceeding had knowingly or wilfully given false evidence or had fabricated false evidence with the intention that such evidence should be used in such proceeding, it or he may, if satisfied that it is necessary and expedient in the interest of justice that the witness should be tried summarily for giving or fabricating, as the case may be, false evidence, take cognizance of the offence and may, after giving the offender a reasonable opportunity of showing cause why he should not be punished for such offence, try such offender, summarily and sentence him to imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or to fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

(2) In every such case the Court shall follow, as nearly as may be practicable, the procedure prescribed for summary trials.

(3) Nothing in this section shall affect the power of the Court to make a complaint under Section 340 for the offence, where it does not choose to proceed under this section.

(4) Where, after any action is init