The main legal point established is that deliberate and conscious perjury is required to initiate action under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., and it must be expedient in the interest of justice with chances of convicting the accused.

Nirmal Singh, J.

1. The relevant facts for the disposal of this petition are that respondents were summoned by Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narwana to face trial under Sections 342, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. The respondents appeared before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 3.2.1999 and were released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with one surety in the like amount. Respondent No. 2 stood surety for respondent No. 1 and submitted that surety bond, which was accepted and attested by the learned Magistrate. In the surety bond, respondent No. 2 showed himself as resident of Mohalla Niwaz Nagar, Narnaul whereas in fact, he was resident of some other Mohalla. Respondent No. 1 executed the personal bond in the name of Vijay Singh, whereas his name was Vijay Kumar.

2. Petitioner moved application before the learned Chef Judicial Magistrate Ist Class under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating Criminal Proceedings against the respondents. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application vide order dated 11.2.2000. Against that order, petitioner filed a revision before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul, which was also dismissed vide order dated 30.10.2000.

3. Aggrieved by the orders of the Courts below, present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the orders with the request that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. be initiated against the respondents.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned orders.

5. Section 195 Cr.P.C. provides the prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence and the procedure in these cases has been laid down in Section 340 Cr.P.C. which reads as under :-

"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. - (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary - (a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate; or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) (3) (4) xx xx xxx."

6. A perusal of the section shows that the while filing the complaint after holding an enquiry under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. for initiating action under Section 195 Cr.P.C. the Court must come to the constitution that a perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and also finds that it is expedient in the interest of justice and there are chances of convicting the accused, then the Court shall file the complaint. If the Court comes to the conclusion that perjury committed by the accused is not deliberate or it was due to some bonafide mistake, then the Court may not file a complaint under Section 195 Cr.P.C.

7. In the instant case, it has been alleged that the respondent No. 2 has given the wrong address in the surety bond and respondent No. 1 while executing the personal bond has given his name as Vijay Singh. After perusing the personal bond and the surety bond, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that these are vague and forfeited to