Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P., J
Jaleel, S/o. Jamal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent
JUDGMENT
[CRL.A Nos.2414/2024 and 70/2025]
These appeals raise identical questions of law and can therefore be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
2. These appeals are filed under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the proceedings against the appellants under Section 340 Cr.PC in OP(MV) No.921/2009 on the file of the III Additional District Court/ II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’).
3. The brief facts are as follows:
OP(MV) No.921/2009 was one filed by legal heirs of one Ayyappan, who succumbed to injuries sustained in a road traffic accident. The petition showed one Prakasan to be the owner cum driver of the offending motorcycle and he was impleaded as the 1st respondent. The United India Insurance Company Ltd., which was impleaded as the 2nd respondent in the petition before the MACT, took up a contention that the offending motorcycle was not driven by the aforesaid Prakasan, but by one Nimesh. It was contended that the aforesaid Nimesh had no licence to drive a motorcycle, and in order to ensure that the claim was met by the Insurance Company, it was falsely projected that the motorc
The court emphasized that a complaint under Section 340 Cr.PC requires a finding of expediency in the interest of justice, not merely a conclusion of false evidence.
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.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for an offence under Section 211, I.P.C. to be made out, the complaint must falsely charge a person with having committed an offence, with the....
Merely repeating allegations from an FIR as a defense does not constitute false evidence under Section 340 Cr.P.C., and proceedings for perjury require clear and convincing evidence of intentional de....
Action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood impacting justice, and mere repetition of allegations is insufficient for prosecution.
The court confirmed that presenting a forged document constitutes a serious offense warranting prosecution under relevant legal provisions, emphasizing the need for judicial integrity.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
