IMPORTANT POINT
The court determined that a memo filed outside of court does not constitute false evidence under Section 379 of the BNSS, and prior observations on legal heirs are not binding determinations.

ORDER :

(Bechu Kurian Thomas, J.)

The applicant seeks for a direction to the Registrar of this Court to file a complaint before the competent Magistrate under sections 191, 192, 193 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the counsel for the revision petitioners and the first revision petitioner herself alleging that they had filed a memo dated 07-04-2022, knowing that its contents are false.

2. The applicant was not a party to the revision petition. She claims to be the second wife of the deceased sole respondent in the revision petition. Though the respondent died during the pendency of the proceedings, on the basis of a memo filed by the counsel for the petitioners along with the first revision petitioner stating that there are no legal heirs, the revision petition was dismissed as abated. The attempt of the applicant herein, to set aside the abatement, claiming herself to be the second wife of the deceased respondent was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The present application has been filed subsequently, seeking to initiate proceedings under section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (erstwhile section 340 Cr.P.C).

3. A brief narration of the circumstances that led to the present application is required to be mentioned. The revision petition was filed by the wife and daughter of the deceased respondent, challenging the common judgment dated 21-12-2018 in M.C. No. 282/2011 on the files of the Family Court, Ernakulam, to the extent it denied maintenance claimed by the first petitioner until she obtained employment as a teacher. As per the order impugned in the revision petition, the respondent was directed to pay monthly maintenance of Rs.7,500/- to his daughter, the second revision petitioner.

4. During the pendency of the revision petition, the respondent died and by order dated 09-06-2022, a learned Single Judge of this Court had, on the basis of a memo filed by the counsel for the petitioners and the first revision petitioner, recorded that the respondent is no more and there are no legal heirs. On that basis, the revision petition was ordered as abated. Subsequently, claiming to be the legal heir of the deceased respondent, the present applicant filed two petitions as Crl. M.Appl. No. 1/2023 and Crl. M.Appl. No. 2/2023. However, Both the applications were dismissed on 09-02-2023, stating that the matter was already disposed of on the basis of a memo filed on behalf of the petitioners. The present application thus beseeches this Court to direct initiation of a complaint against the counsel and the first petitioner for filing the memo stating that there are no legal heirs. The applicant alleges that wherever she tries to put forth her claim to be the legal heir of the deceased respondent, the authorities refused to pay heed to her claim due to the observation of the learned Single Judge made on the basis of the memo dated 07-04-2022 and hence she is seriously prejudiced.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed stating that the application is not maintainable as the applicant is a stranger to the proceedings and further that her application for impleading filed as Crl.M.Appl. No.1/2023 was dismissed as early as 09-02-2023 and hence she has no locus standi to move this Court. It is further stated that the disputed memo is not a piece of evidence to attract the offences alleged and that the application is an abuse of the process of law. It was also stated that the applicant is not a legal heir of the respondent and that she is an accused in Crime No.1692/2021 of the Cherthala Police Station.

6. I have heard Smt. Aysha Abraham, the learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Raman Kartha, the learned counsel for the respondent.

7. In order to appreciate the contentions raised by the parties, it is necessary to advert to and extract the proceedings as recorded on the file of this case. The relevant proceedings from the order sheet are given below:

8. The proceedings in RP(FC) No. 189/2019 reveal