Back
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, ALOK JAIN
Jarnial Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Augustine George Masih, J.)
By this order, we propose to decide above-referred to two petitions, wherein the challenge is to the order passed by the trial Court on an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. for initiating proceedings against the petitioners.
2. Primarily, the reason for initiation of such proceedings is based upon the conclusion drawn by the Court that the petitioners, who were witnesses in the trial, had not supported the prosecution case. Previously, during the investigation, they had stated a different version by involving all the accused persons in the crime but when they appeared in the witness-box and deposed on oath, they had totally resiled from their earlier version with a mala-fide intention to save the accused from the rigors of law. Referring them prima-facie guilty of giving false evidence on oath with a mala-fide intention to screen the accused when they are supposed to speak the truth, which they had disclosed during investigation while recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.. Vide the impugned order, which is under challenge, the Court had come to a conclusion and ordered that instead of th
Cognizance for contempt must be taken by the court where original proceedings are pending; failure to do so violates the mandatory requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
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....
(1) Offences referred to under Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. will get attracted only with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.(2) In a case....
Cognizance of offences under specific sections of IPC must adhere to procedural requirements outlined in CrPC; failure to follow these renders such actions invalid.
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.
Petitioner has not been confined for illegal purpose amounting to commission of offence. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the liberty granted to him by filing the complaint under Sect....
The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, only in the rarest of rare cases.
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
