The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a specific reference to incriminating evidence, a prima facie case, and expediency in the interests of justice for initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. - Challenging the dismissal of the appeal filed under Section 341 Cr. P. C. by the Sessions Court, Una, upholding the dismissal of the application by Judicial Magistrate under Section 340 CrPC, the applicant, who is a practicing Advocate, has come up before this Court seeking prosecution of some of the prosecution witnesses for perjury.

2. One Smt. Raj Rani, who was sister-in-law of the applicant/petitioner, way back in the year 1999, had filed a complaint against him in the Police Station, Una for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 506 IPC. On the basis of the said information an FIR No. 601 of 1999, dated November 21, 1999 was registered in the file of Police Station, Una, for commission of the said offences.

3. The present petitioner was arraigned as an accused in the said FIR and subsequently prosecuted.

4. After recording of the evidence, when the trial was at the final stages, the accused/petitioner filed an application under Section 340 CrPC, in the Court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Una, H.P.

5. The allegations levelled in the said application were that during the examination of the prosecution witnesses some of them while deposing on oath, intentionally made false statements against the applicant. He further alleged that the witnesses attempted to corroborate the facts by making false statements, and also to overshadow the illegalities committed during the investigation of the case. In the light of the above allegations, the applicant sought that an inquiry to be conducted for the offence of perjury.

6. Vide impugned order dated February 9, 2015, passed in Cr. Misc. Application No. 27-IV-2015, in Cr. Case No. 46-II-08/99, titled as State Vs. Dinesh Chander Sharma, the Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said application, holding that the Court did not find on record any such offence, which was expedient in the interest of justice, in exercise of powers under Section 340 CrPC.

7. Feeling aggrieved against such dismissal of application, the applicant filed a criminal appeal in the Sessions Court. Vide judgement dated September 5, 2017 passed in Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 2015, titled Dinesh Chander Sharma vs. State of H.P., the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Una, District Una, H.P., upheld the impugned order passed by Judicial Magistrate, and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the dismissal of the Cr. Appeal filed under Section 341 CrPC, the applicant/accused has come up before this Court by filing the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 CrPC, seeking direction to conduct inquiry under Section 340 CrPC.

8. I have heard Shri Dinesh Chander Sharma, Advocate, who appeared in person, and Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma and Shri Nand Lal Thakur, Additional Advocates General for the respondent/State and waded through the entire record.

DISCUSSIONS AND REASONING

9. A bare perusal of the application filed by the accused under Section 340 CrPC reveals that there is no reproduction of a single sentence, which according to applicant amounted to perjury. Section 340 CrPC states that when an application is filed, and the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made only then the Court will proceed further. Thus, what the Court is to see the contents of the application, and not to pursue the evidence without any reference of the same in the application. In the present case, the application is general in nature.

10. The relevant extract of the application is reproduced as under: -

"2. that the aforementioned persons, being legally bound by oath to state the truth, intentionally made their statements before the concerned Courts in the aforenoted case which were false and which they knew to be false (I) concerning the applicant in material particulars and (ii) the investigation process held with regard to related F.I.R. involved in the above noted case thereby attempting to corroborate the fa