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 deceit.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Both the IAs are disposed of by following common order.

2. I.A.No.905 of 2025: Instant petition under Sections 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 BNSS is at the behest of the informant, namely, opposite party No.2 for a direction to initiate action against the petitioner in terms thereof for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 193 , 195, 199 & 200 I.P.C. expedient in the interest of justice on the grounds stated for having pleaded false facts in the reply affidavit dated 30^th July, 2025.

3. I.A.No.882 of 2025: Present petition is filed by opposite party No.2 directing the petitioner to produce the document and such order with regard to amalgamation of the partnership firm in question with the company, namely, Lumex Resources Pvt. Ltd. for the reason stated.

According to opposite party No.2, the action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is necessary, since, the petitioner has filed a false affidavit in the proceeding before this Court for self and co- accused husband pending disposal with the plea that the details of the chargesheet have not been revealed, rather, it contains misleading averments and in so far as the case at hand is concerned, the same is evident from the list of the dates and events described by her. It is further pleaded that the accused husband is claimed to be the Director of Lumex Resources Pvt. Ltd., a fact, which is outrightly false, inasmuch as, he was never holding any such position in the company. The statement that the partnership firm managed by the petitioner and her husband had been amalgamated with the company is again a falsehood, for the reason that both the accused persons claimed such amalgamation by a Board Resolution to that effect, which was later ascertained to be incorrect and the partnership firm still exists independently as on date. It is alleged by opposite party No.2 that the averments in the revision petition are completely false with regard to the claim of the petitioner about the company having been formed. Referring to the facts pleaded further, it is stated by opposite party No.2 that there is misrepresentation of material facts, since no Official Liquidator was ever appointed and no such order of liquidation was passed since because the Resolution Professional was appointed by the NCLT, who during forensic audit had figured out that there has not been any business undertaken by the company and the amount was misappropriated through various other shell companies as there were nil assets and the company was dissolved without the process of liquidation. According to opposite party No.2, there has been misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner and the co-accused with regard to the documents pertaining clientele base revealed to them and besides that, the investigation unearthed the fact that the documents showing the transactions to have been forged and fabricated and that apart, one of the shell companies was formed after the loan was availed from opposite party No.2. With such other facts pleaded, it is finally alleged by opposite party No.2 that the petitioner has misled the Court with an intention to defraud and interfere with the administration of justice and hence, she is liable to be prosecuted with a complaint filed against her having committed offenses punishable under Section(s) 191 and 192 I.P.C. especially having pleaded incorrect and false facts in the reply affidavit.

4. Heard Mr. Kanungo, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Acharya, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 besides Ms. Dash, learn