Back
2008(3) JLJ 144
A.K. Gohil and Ku. Sheela Khanna, JJ.
Jagdish v. Ashok Kumar Gureja
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.4356 of 2006 (Gwalior);
Decided on 2.8.2007.
Respondent No.2 Ashok Kushwah filed an affidavit in support of his application under Order 22 rule 4 read with section 151 IPC, in LPA. When the Division Bench was considering the application (IA No.6541/2000), which was filed under Order 22 rule 4 CPC, it was found that in the reply of the aforesaid application it was categorically stated that in another appeal between the same parties, filed by the same appellant which is FA No.13/93, an application for substitution of legal representatives was filed on 16.7.1998 alleging therein that respondent died on 25.12.1997. Therefore, the Division Bench found that this contention of the appellant in his affidavit dated 3.8.2000 that he came to know about the death of the respondent only on 1.8.2000 through Raghuveer Singh, Advocate, was not correct and the Division Bench considering the facts of the case found that the appellant has sworn an affidavit which was false to his knowledge and thereafter the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and, consequently, IA No.6541/2000, IA No.6542/2000 and MCP No.2057/2001 were also dismissed and appeal was also dismissed as stood abated. Admittedly, on that day when the Division Bench was passing the order in LPA No.1/1993 on 28.2.2002, no such prayer was made by the appellant that a direction be given regarding the prosecution of the respondent No.2 Ashok Kushwah, for perjury who had filed a false affidavit before the Court. [Para 2
Held: We are of the view that filing such an application after four and a half years has reduced the force behind the plea of prosecution. It was proper on the day when the order was passed in the Court to direct for prosecution of the respondent but on that day Court has not found that there should be any such direction. Now, it would not be proper for this Court to give any such direction after four and a half years and it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to invoke the provisions of section 340 CrPC for this purpose. [Para 13
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.340 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S.193 -- taking action under S.340 -- two questions to be considered --firstly, there should be a prima facie case - secondly, it is expedient in interest of justice to permit prosecution under S.193. (1978)1 SCC 18 followed. [Para 6
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.340 -- power -- to be used with utmost care and due consideration -- prosecution for perjury should be taken only if it is expedient in the interest of justice. AIR 1992 SC 1831 followed. [Para 8
(4) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.340 -- Penal Code. 1860 -- Ss.193 and 199 -- every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon Court to order prosecution -- judicial discretion is to be exercised in larger interest of administration of justice. (2000)1 SCC 278 followed. [Para 9
(5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.340(1) -- formation of opinion to hold an inquiry -- should be of justice -- even after formation of opinion it is not mandatory to make complaint. (2002) 1 SCC 253 followed. [Para 11
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.340 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- S.193 -- prosecution for perjury -- should be sanctioned by Courts only in cases where perjury is deliberate and conviction is reasonably probable. AIR 1971 SC 1367 followed. [Para 5
(7) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.199 -- prosecution for false declaration -- falsity with reference to truth found in some other document -- two situations which cannot co-exist with regard to same person must be pointed out. AIR 1982 SC 1238 followed. [Para 7
(8) Penal Code, 1860 -- Chap. XI -- effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing evil of perjury -- it is the need of the time. (2001)5 SCC 289 followed. [Para 10
¼1½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 340 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 199 && ftl [kaM U;k;ihB us ekeyk lquk Fkk] feF;k ‘kiFk ds ckjs esa dksbZ vkns‘k ikfjr ugha fd;k && u vkosnd us gh bl rF; dk funsZ‘k fd;k && 4&1@2 o"kZ i‘pkr~ naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 340 ds v/khu vkosnu xzg.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA izR;FkhZ Ø-2 v‘kksd dq‘kokg us ySVlZ isVsaV vihy esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 151 ds lkFk ifBr vkns‘k 22 fu;e 4 ds v/khu vius vkosnu ds leFkZr esa ‘kiFki= Qkby fd;k FkkA tc [kaM U;k;ihB vkosnu ¼varfje vkosnu Ø-6541@2000½ ij fopkj dj jgh Fkh tks flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds vkns‘k 22 fu;e 4 ds v/khu Qkby dh xbZ Fkh] ;g ik;k x;k Fkk fd iwoksZDr vkosnu ds mÙkj esa ;g Li"Vr% dgk x;k Fkk fd mUgha i{kdkjksa ds e/; vU; vihy esa] mldh vihykFkhZ }kjk Qkby dh xbZ tks izFke vihy Ø-13@93 gS] fof/kd izfrfuf/k;ksa ds izfrLFkkiu ds fy, 16-7-1998 dks mlesa ;g vfHkdFku djrs gq, Qkby dh Fkh fd izR;FkhZ dh 25-12-1997 dks e`R;q gks pqdh gSA blfy,] [kaM U;k;ihB us ik;k fd vihykFkhZ dk vius ‘kiFki= fnukad 3-8-2000 esa ;g ladFku fd izR;FkhZ dh e`R;q ds ckjs esa mldks tkudkjh j?kqohj flag] vf/koDrk }kjk 1-8-2000 dks gh feyh] lgh ugha Fkk rFkk [kaM U;k;ihB us ekeys ds rF;ksa ij fopkj djrs gq, ik;k fd vihykFkhZ us ,sls ‘kiFki= ij ‘kiFk yh tks mldh tkudkjh esa feF;k Fkk vkSj rRi‘pkr~ foyac ds fy, ekQh dk vkosnu [kkfjt dj fn;k x;k vkSj ifj.kkeLo:i varfje vkosnu Ø-6541@2000] varfje vkosnu 6542@2000 rFkk izdh.kZ flfoy ;kfpdk Ø-2057@2001 Hkh [kkfjt dj fn, x, vkSj vihy Hkh mi‘kfer gqbZ dh Hkk¡fr [kkfjt dj nh xbZA Lohd`r :i ls tc [kaM U;k;ihB }kjk 28-2-2002 esa ySVlZ isVsaV vihy Ø-1@1993 esa vkns‘k ikfjr fd;k tk jgk Fkk] vihykFkhZ }kjk ,slh dksbZ izkFkZuk ugha dh xbZ Fkh fd izR;FkhZ Ø-2 v‘kksd dq‘kokg ftlus U;k;ky; ds le{k feF;k ‘kiFki= Qkby fd;k Fkk] feF;k lk{; ds fy, vfHk;kstu ds ckjs esa funs‘k fn;k tk,A ¿ iSjk 2 vfHkfu/kkZfjr % gekjh jk; gS fd lk<+s pkj o"kZ i‘pkr~ ,slk vkosnu Qkby fd, tkus ls vfHk;kstu ds vfHkokd~ dk cy {kh.k gks x;k gSA izR;FkhZ dks vfHk;ksftr fd, tkus dk funs‘k ml fnu leqfpr Fkk ftl fnu vkns‘k U;k;ky; esa ikfjr gqvk] fdarq ml fnu U;k;ky; us ;g ugha ik;k fd ,slk dksbZ funs‘k fn;k tkuk pkfg,A vc lk<+s pkj o"kZ i‘pkr~ ,slk dksbZ vkns‘k fn;k tkuk bl U;k;ky; ds fy, leqfpr ugha gksxk vkSj naM izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 340 ds mica/kksa dk vkJ; fy;k tkuk U;k; ds fgr esa b‘Vdj ugha gksxkA ¿ iSjk 13 ¼2½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 340 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 193 && /kkjk 340 ds v/khu dkjZokbZ dh tkuk && nks iz‘uksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk gksxk && izFker%] izFken`"V~;k dksbZ ekeyk gksuk pkfg, && f}rh;r%] /kkjk 193 ds v/khu vfHk;kstu dh vuqKk U;k; ds fgr esa b‘Vdj gSA ¼1978½1 ,l lh lh 18 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 6 ¼3½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 340 && ‘kfDr && vfr‘k; lko/kkuh vkSj lE;d~ fopkj djus ds i‘pkr~ iz;qDr dh tkuk pkfg, && feF;k lk{; ds fy, vfHk;kstu rHkh fd;k tkuk pkfg, tc og U;k; ds fgr esa b‘Vdj gSA , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 1831 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 8 ¼4½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 340 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 193 rFkk 199 && izR;sd xyr vFkok feF;k dFku ij vfHk;kstu dk vkns‘k fn;k tkuk U;k;ky;ksa dks ykfte ugha gS && U;k;nku ds c`gÙkj fgr ds fy, U;kf;d foosdkf/kdkj iz;qDr fd;k tkuk pkfg,A ¼2000½1 ,l lh lh 278 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 9 ¼5½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 340¼1½ && tk¡p fd, tkus ds fy, jk; nh tkuk && U;k; ds fgrksa esa b‘Vdj gksuk pkfg, && jk; cu tkus ij Hkh ifjokn fd;k tkuk vkKkid ugha gSA ¼2002½1 ,l lh lh 253 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 11 ¼6½ naM izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 340 && naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 193 && feF;k ‘kiFk ds fy, vfHk;kstu && U;k;ky; }kjk mlh fLFkfr esa eatwjh nh tkuk pkfg, tc feF;k lk{; tkucw> dj gS vkSj ;qfDrlaxr :i ls nks"kflf) laHko gSA , vkb vkj 1971 ,l lh 1367 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 25 ¼7½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && /kkjk 199 && feF;k ?kks"k.kk ds fy, vfHk;kstu && lR; ds lanHkZ esa feF;kRo fdlh vU; nLrkost esa ik;k x;k && nks vofLFkfr;k¡ vo‘; fufnZ"V dh tkuk pkfg, tks fdlh O;fDr ds ckjs esa lg&vfLrRooku ugha jg ldrhaA , vkb vkj 1982 ,l lh 1238 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 7 ¼8½ naM lafgrk] 1860 && v/;k; 11 && feF;k lk{; dh cqjkbZ ds fuokj.k ds fy, izHkkoh vkSj dBksj dkjZokbZ vko‘;d gS && ;g le; dh ek¡x gSA ¼2001½5 ,l lh lh 289 vuqlfjrA ¿ iSjk 10
Gohil, J. -- 1. Applicant has filed this application under section 340 CrPC for a direction that the respondent be prosecuted for perjury for filing false affidavit in the Court and for that necessary direction be issued.
2. The brief facts of the case are that in LPA No.1/1993, respondent No.1 Ashok Kumar Gureja was the appellant and on his behalf respondent No.2 Ashok Kumar Kushwah has filed an affidavit on 3.8.2000 that he came to know that the respondent Gyanchand has expired. He inquired through his advocate and he came to know about this fact on 1.8.2000, when he went to the office of Raghuveer Singh, it was told that Gyanchand has died. Thereafter Raghuveer Singh wrote a letter to the appellant on his Gwalior address but since he was residing in Delhi, he could not receive the letter, Thereafter, respondent No.2 Ashok Kushwah filed an affidavit in support of his application under Order 22 rule 4 read with section 151 IPC, in LPA. When the Division Bench was considering the application (IA No.6541/2000), which was filed under Order 22 rule 4 CPC, it was found that in the reply of the aforesaid application it was categorically stated that in another appeal between the same parties, filed by the same appellant which is FA No.13/93, an application for substitution of legal representatives was filed on 16.7.1998 alleging therein that respondent died on 25.12.1997. Therefore, the Division Bench found that this contention of the appellant in his affidavit dated 3.8.2000 that he came to know about the death of the respondent only on 1.8.2000 through Raghuveer Singh, Advocate, was not correct and the Division Bench considering the facts of the case found that the appellant has sworn an affidavit which was false to his knowledge and thereafter the application for condonation of delay was dismissed and, consequently, IA No.6541/ 2000, IA No.6542/2000 and MCP No.2057/2001 were also dismissed and appeal was also dismissed as stood abated. Admittedly, on that day when the Division Bench was passing the order in LPA No. 1/1993 on 28.2.2002, no such prayer was made by the appellant that a direction be given regarding the prosecution of the respondent No.2 Ashok Kushwah, for perjury who had filed a false affidavit before the Court.
3. There is no doubt that false affidavit was submitted by Ashok Kushwah but the question for consideration in this case is whether in such matter where after lapse of more than four and a half years, the applicant has filed this application under section 340 CrPC, the permission should be granted for prosecution or not. Certainly a person, who has filed a false affidavit, should be prosecuted for perjury but we are of the view that no such prayer was made by the counsel for the respondent on the day when the Division Bench was passing the order in LPA on 28.2.2002.
4. Shri R.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no limitation for prosecuting a person for perjury. This may not be disputed but on reading the provision of section 340 CrPC, it is clear that before a direction either for an inquiry or for prosecution the Court has to form an opinion that it is "expedient in the interest of justice" that an inquiry should be made into any such offence. The meaning of the word "expedient in the interest of justice" is that forming of the opinion is a sine quo non for proceedings to launch a prosecution for perjury, which shows that the Court has to be careful in balancing of many factors and prosecution for perjury can be directed in the larger interest of the administration of justice in case of deliberate falsehood.
5. In the case of Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and another, reported in AIR 1971 SC 1367, the Supreme Court has held that indiscriminate prosecutions under section 193, Indian Penal Code resulting in failure are likely to defeat the very object of such prosecution. It has been laid down that the prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by Courts only in those cases wh
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
