Point of Law :
expression shall substituted by ‘may’ in Section 340 Cr.P.C. by 1973 Cr.P.C. and thereby it is not mandatory for Court to record a finding, after preliminary enquiry, regarding commission of offence of perjury alleged under Section 195 IPC, hub of this provision is only formation of opinion as to whether offence should be duly enquired into. It is observed that the stand taken by the appellant does not attract the offence of perjury under Section 193 IPC and thereby order directing filing of complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate held liable to be quashed.

1. The petitioner is the de facto complainant and respondent Nos.1 to 5 are the accused in C.C.No.397 of 2015 on the file of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-XXV Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. Impugning the order, dated 05.09.2017, passed in Crl.M.P.No.1246 of 2017 in the pending calendar case supra, by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate dismissing the application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to initiate, as per the private complaint procedure, proceedings against the accused for the offence under Section 195 IPC, the present petition is filed.

2. Heard both sides and perused the grounds vis-à-vis the impugned order.

3. The factual matrix relevant only for the purpose of the criminal petition is that among the six accused in the calendar case supra, taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections, 420, 423 and 425 IPC, after the accused were summoned, A.2 to A.6 filed Crl.P.no.2147 of 2016 in this High Court seeking to quash C.C.No.397 of 2015 proceedings and the same was disposed of on 22.02.2016 by dispensing with the presence of the petitioners/A.2 to A.6 unless specifically directed by the trial Court for their appearance and it is consequent to that order of this Court, there was a direction for the appearance of A.2 to A.6 personally on 21.10.2016, again on 09.11.2016 and 02.12.2016 and for their failure to attend, Non-bailable Warrants (NBWs) were issued against them and impugning the said by NBWs by seeking its recall they moved petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.P.No.836 of 2017 and order dated 06.04.2017 passed by the Court saying NBWs cancelled on furnishing personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,000/- with two sureties in a like sum and shall appear on every date of hearing without any fail, in default shall be remanded to judicial custody. These facts not in dispute. One of the contentions of the de facto complainant is that there is no service of notice on the application for recall of the warrants. Same is in fact not mandatory and on that ground, the application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. allowed cannot be set aside, much less allowed to be impugned.

4. Coming to the other submission with contention is signature of the accused persons in the memo of appearance filed by them no way tallied with the signatures on the warrant recall petitions and there is fabrication of signatures and thereby, they are liable for punishment for the offences committed affecting administration of justice. The petition with these facts filed to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against A.2 to A.6 was opposed by them by their counter before the lower Court for the impugned order, that they filed the application for recall of the warrant that was allowed by the Court within its discretion and for which no notice is mandatory to the de facto complainant and the contentions are untrue and the petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. The counter no way specifically answered about so-called impersonation of the signatures concerned. The impugned order of the lower court with reference to the pleadings supra in determining as to whether the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be initiated against A.2 to A.6 observed that they are not disputing the signatures available on the warrant recall petition filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. and also their appearance before the Court on the date and thereby there is no prima facie material to initiate enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner/de facto complainant impugned the same as untenable, and the learned counsel for the accused are supporting the said order from hearing both sides and perusal of the material.

6. In fact, Section 340 Cr.P.C. speaks of the procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 Cr.P.C. that (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in