Prosecution for perjury under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires prima facie evidence and expediency in the interest of justice, particularly when considering delays and motivations behind complaints.

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C., against the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court at Chennai passed in I.A.No.2363/2014, dated 08/12/2014 wherein, the information by way of sworn statement given by one R.Murugesan alleging perjury, was treated th as a complaint and forwarded the material records to the 7 Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, for further action.

2. The sum and substance of the information treated as complaint is that, in the divorce petition in O.P.No.291/2001 (on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai) filed for divorce by Murugesan on the ground of cruelty, Gokila/appellant herein as respondent in the said original petition for herself and on behalf of her minor child filed I.A.No.21/2002 seeking Rs.5,000/- to her and Rs.3,000/- to her minor daughter as maintenance for each and every hearing besides Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

3. In her petition, she has specifically stated that she is not working. She has no independent income. She is under the care and protection of her parent at Sirumugai near Coimbatore. For each and every hearing, she has to come from Coimbatore accompanied by her father, mother or brother to attend the Court at Chennai. To meet out her travelling expenses and ligation expenses, she need interim maintenance.

4. Murugesan, the first respondent herein filed counter and denied liability to pay maintenance. The Family Court after considering the plea made by both sides, by its order dated 30/04/2002 observing that, “it is pertinent to note that the petitioner (Gokila) is not working. She is solely depending upon her parents and brother” ordered interim maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m., to Gokila and Rs.1,000/ p.m to her minor daughter Karishma.

5. Pursuant to this order, it appears that Murugesan has paid a total sum of Rs.1,39,500/- as maintenance. Later, his O.P.No.291/2001 was dismissed on 08/02/2005. However, subsequently Gokila filed the nd divorce petition H.M.O.P.No.58/2008 before the 2 Additional Sub- ordinate Judge, Coimbatore and the same was allowed. Thus, the marriage between Gokila and Murugesan solemnized on 14/11/1996 was dissolved on 30/10/2009.

6. While so, Murgesan has filed a complaint under Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C r/w Section 193 of IPC alleging that Gokila has committed perjury during the proceeding in I.A.No.21 of 2002 by suppressing the fact that she was working as Primary Teacher in Shree Saraswathi Vidyaah Mandheer School, Alangombu, Mettupalayam from 02/06/2001 to 30/08/2006. Suppressing this fact, she filed affidavit in her I.A.No.21/2002 that she is not working and she has not owned immovable property and has no source of income. Relying upon this false affidavit, the Court passed an order dated 30/04/2002, thereby Gokila has committed serious wrong to the Court for an offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC.

7. This complaint dated 3 September, 2014 was taken on file as I.A.No.2363/2014 in I.A.No.21 of 2002 by the Principal Family Court, Chennai and the order was passed on 08/12/2014. Consequently, the th material records were forwarded to 7 Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai, vide, proceedings dated 09/01/2015. The said order and proceedings are under challenge in this criminal appeal preferred by Gokila.

8. It is relevant at this juncture to also point out that in his affidavit filed in I.A.No.2363/2014, Murugesan/1st respondent has also referred about another allegation of per