ORDER

This petition is under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C'), seeking to quash the proceedings initiated by the Sessions Judge against the petitioner under Section 344 Cr.P.C for giving false evidence.

2. Petitioner is alleged to have given the first information statement in Crime No.652/2007 of Chathannoor Police Station, alleging the commission of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After investigation, the case was tried as S.C. No.937/2009 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II Kollam. While being examined as PW1 during the trial of the said sessions case, petitioner denied his signature in the first information statement and submitted that he had not seen the incident. Petitioner was declared hostile to the prosecution, and he was cross-examined with the permission of the court. Later, the Investigating Officer asserted that the writings on the FIS and the signature is that of the petitioner. The Sessions Court thereafter recalled PW1 and examined him and obtained his specimen signature. While acquitting the accused as per judgment dated 31.05.2012, the learned Sessions Judge observed that the petitioner as PW1 is liable to be prosecuted for committing perjury since he had denied his handwriting and signature in the F.I. Statement.

3. I have heard Sri. Biju C. Abraham, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. In the decision in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Another (AIR 1973 SC 2190) Supreme Court had observed that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines questions of expediency. The court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or serve the ends of a private party.

5. Bearing in mind the above principle, when the circumstances of the present case are appreciated, it is revealed that a proceeding is initiated for giving false evidence against the petitioner for denying his signature and handwriting in the first information statement. While acquitting the accused in S.C. No.937/2009 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-II, Kollam, the learned Sessions Judge opined from the materials available before it to initiate proceedings for perjury against the petitioner. The denial of handwriting and signature in the FIS while giving evidence on oath as PW1 has led the Sessions Judge to initiate the proceedings.

6. Section 154 of the Cr.P.C deals with first information statement and FIR. The said statutory provision states that the information given in writing or reduced to writing shall be signed by the person giving it. Therefore, the person who has given the FIS has a statutory duty to sign it. When the said signature is later denied, that too when the subsequent statement was given on oath, it cannot be held at this stage of the proceedings, that the learned Session Judge went wrong in initiating proceedings for giving false evidence. Whether false evidence was given or not, are matters which fall within the realm of disputed facts and hence, the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C is not legally tenable.

7. The earlier statement and the signature, appearing in the FIS, is not a statement given on oath, while the statement denying his signature and handwriting was given on oath. Thus, the petitioner is called upon to answer a case of giving false evidence on the basis of two statements which contradict each other, one of which was not a statement given on oath. Though generally, in cases of perjury arising from contradictory statements, both statements must have been given on oath, the same cannot be said to be applicable in respect of the signature in the FI Statement, in view of section 154 Cr.P.C.

8