IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ALEXANDER THOMAS, C.S. SUDHA, JJ.
Rithu Maria Joy, D/o. Joy – Appellant
Versus
Shejoy Varghese, S/o. Varghese – Respondent
Crl.A No. 56 of 2023
Decided on : 22-03-2023
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 341, 340, 195, 195(1)(b)(i), 125 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 191, 193 – Appeal – Seeking Maintenance - Offences affecting administration of justice - Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence - Whether materials produced before the court makes out a prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C., - Whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into alleged offence - Purpose of a preliminary inquiry under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. is not to find whether a person is guilty or not but only to decide whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence. (Para 10)
Finding of the Court:
Court is not obliged to make a preliminary inquiry on a complaint but if Court decides to do so, it should make a final set of facts which is expedient in interest of justice that offence should be further probed into. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if interests of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of complaint, Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to effect that it is expedient in interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by Court by weighing not magnitude of injury suffered by person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. Therefore, in order to initiate prosecution for perjury, Court must prima facie reach a conclusion that there has been a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the Court and interfere in the administration of justice.
Result: Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
C.S.SUDHA, J.
This appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the sole accused in C.C.No.196/2020 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha. The said case has been taken on file on the basis of Annexure A3 Complaint of the Sheristadar, Family Court, Muvattupuzha, which in turn is on the basis of Annexure A2 order dated 24/07/2019 in M.P.No.211/2016 in M.C.No.109/2015 on the file of the Family Court, Muvattupuzha.
2. The appellant/accused filed M.C.No.109/2015 seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. against her estranged husband/respondent. In the said case, while the appellant was examined as PW1, she was asked in the cross examination as to whether she was employed as a doctor in a clinic and earning salary. The appellant answered in the negative and claimed to have no means to maintain herself. The proprietor of 'Doctor 32', Kakkanad, namely, RW2, was examined by the respondent/husband to disprove her case. RW2 in her examination deposed that the appellant herein is working in her clinic as a trainee and that she is being paid an amount of Rs.4,000/-monthly as stipend. The respondent/husband then filed M.P.No.211/2016 contending that the statement made by the appellant herein on oath denying her employment status would come within the definition of the offence of giving false evidence as contemplated under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC. Hence, the request for lodging a complaint against the appellant before the jurisdictional Magistrate by invoking the power under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for commission of the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC.
3. On the basis of the said complaint, the learned Family Court Judge found that the offence alleged to have been committed by the appellant is one among the offences mentioned under Section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. and hence was of the opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to make an enquiry. On a consideration of the oral evidence of RW2 and Ext.B4 attendance register maintained in the clinic, the court concluded that the materials on record prima facie showed that the appellant under oath, had made a false statement in her examination before the court and so an offence punishable under Section 193 IPC had been made out, for which action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. required to be taken. Hence M.P.No.211/2016 was allowed as per Annexure A2 order and direction was given to lodge a complaint against the appellant herein under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Pursuant to the order, the Sheristadar, Family Court, Muvattupuzha, filed Annexure A3 complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha, which court in turn has taken the case on file as C.C.No.196/2020.
4. In the appeal memorandum it is alleged that Annexure A3 complaint is not maintainable as it is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. The enquiries stated to have been conducted by the Family Court, was without considering the materials on record or considering it in the proper perspective, which has resulted in causing serious miscarriage of justice. The materials on record do not show the involvement of any public interest or intention to give any false statement. As Annexure A3 complaint is without complying with the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C., the same is not maintainable and hence liable to be withdrawn, contends the appellant.
5. Heard Sri.Benny Joseph, the learned counsel for the appellant ; Ms.Lowsy, the learned counsel for the first respondent and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, the learned Senior Public Prosecutor.
6. Admittedly, the appellant herein was examined as PW1 in M.C.No.109/2015, a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C., before the Family Court concerned. In the cross examination, she was asked thus –
Pritish v. State of Maharashtra
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah: 2005 KHC 647 : AIR 2005 SC 2119
SupremeToday
Prosecution for perjury in matrimonial disputes requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood and must be deemed expedient in the interest of justice.
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 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.
The court's control over offences related to false evidence and public justice, and the necessity of a preliminary enquiry to determine the expediency of prosecution in the interest of justice.
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.