ORDER

The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal under Section 341 of

Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the order dated 11.07.2022 passed in sT No.10/2021 by First ASJ, Jaora, District Ratlam whereby the learned ASJ has directed to initiate proceedings against the appellant to prosecute the appellant (prosecutrix) for giving false evidence and for instituting false criminal proceedings to a public servant.

Facts of the case in brief are that on a report of the prosecutrix, Police

Station Ringnod has registered Crime No.209/2020 on 09.09.2020 against the accused Vasudev for the offence punishable under Section 341, 354, 323, 294 and 506(II) and 509 alongwith Section 376 of IPC. Thereafter, the statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ex.P/8 by the JMFC on 10.09.2020. Thereafter, the learned trial Court after considering the statements of the witnesses acquitted the accused.

Counsel for the appellant submits that the statement made under Section

164 of Cr.P.C. is not regarded as substantive piece of evidence. It is further submitted that merely on the fact that deposition of applicant is contradictory to her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C is not sufficient to hold that either of the two statement is false. It is further submitted that for registering the complaint against the appellant it is mandatory requirement that prima facie it is established that the appellant has given false statement before the Court and if it is established that statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was false than no prosecution can be directed to be lodged against the appellant. It is further submitted that without given any show cause notice and without holding any enquiry, the learned Court below could not directly order for filing of the complaint against the appellant. It is further submitted that it was to be determined by the Court whether witness was willing to give statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. voluntarily or not by the mental state of the appellant at the time of giving statement and reasons must be recorded by the Court regarding the retracted statement as well as the earlier statement. It is further submitted that no opportunity was given to the appellant to explain the difference in the statement before issuing direction against the appellant. Hence, the learned trial Court has erred in directing the authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellant and prays for setting aside the impugned order.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer by submitting that the learned Court below has rightly passed the impugned order after considering the evidence available on record as well as by considering the statements of the prosecutrix. It is further submitted that the learned Court below has rightly direct to initiate criminal proceedings against the prosecutrix looking to the version of her statements. Hence, the appellant is not entitled for grant of any relief from this Court and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

From the perusal of the FIR, it is clear that the FIR has been lodged by the prosecutrix herself by leveling certain allegations against respondent no.2. Further, she in her statements recorded under Section 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. has repeated her version as mentioned in the FIR. Before the learned Court below she has been examined as PW-1 and in her statements, the prosecutrix has admitted that she had lodged the FIR as well as admitted her signatures on the FIR. She further admitted that Ex.P/8 is the statements of her recorded before the Court below under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. From the Court statements of the appellant, it is crystal clear that the prosecutrix has denied the allegations against respondent no.2 and has completely turned hostile. Her deposition is quite contradictory to her statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, hence, the learned trial Court has rightly found th