IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.269 of 2024 (In the matter of application under Section 397 and

401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).

Smt. Manasa Behera (cid:0)« Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha & others (cid:0)« Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. P.C.Patnaik, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr.A.K.Apat, Addl. PP CORAM:

JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:02.04.2025(ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.

1. This revision is directed against the concurring finding of the learned Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Purushottampur and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam refusing to act in terms of Sec. 340 of the CrPC.

2. In the course of hearing, Mr.Padma Charan Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that OP No.3 has deposed false evidence in his examination-

in-chief and cross-examination and thereby he is liable U/S. 340 of the CrPC, but the learned trial Court/Appellate Court without appreciating the matter in proper perspective has passed the impugned orders which are liable to be quashed/set aside.

3. After having considered the submissions as advanced for the petitioner upon perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner wants to invoke the power U/S. 340 of the CrPC against the OP No.3 for giving false evidence before the trial Court, but fact remains that there is equivalent penal provision as enumerated in Sec. 193 of IPC for giving false evidence and thereby, the petitioner could have filed a complaint before the Court concerned, but instead of doing so, the petitioner has approached the concerned Courts which have passed the impugned orders. Right now this Court being the Revisional Court cannot appreciate the facts as agitated before the Court concerned and the point on which the petitioner argues is with regard to giving false oral evidence by OP No.3. Further, Sec. 340 of the CrPC if carefully gone through refers to expediency, which the Court concerned has to consider to pass an order directing to initiate a proceeding U/S. 340 of CrPC, but not only the learned trial Court, but also the Appellate Court has refused to extend the benefit of same to the Petitioner in this case.

4. Be that as it may, this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision in State of Punjab Vrs.

Jasbir Singh; 2022 SCC Online SC 1240 wherein the Apex Court has been called upon to answer a reference of the following two questions:-

(cid:0)‡(cid:0)(cid:11)(cid:0)L(cid:0)(cid:12)(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)Z(cid:0)K(cid:0)H(cid:0)W(cid:0)K(cid:0)H(cid:0)U(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)6(cid:0)H(cid:0)F(cid:0)W(cid:0)L(cid:0)R(cid:0)Q(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)(cid:22)(cid:0)(cid:23)(cid:0)(cid:19)(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)R(cid:0)I(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)W(cid:0)K Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court?

(ii) What is the scope and ambit of such (cid:0)S(cid:0)U(cid:0)H(cid:0)O(cid:0)L(cid:0)P(cid:0)L(cid:0)Q(cid:0)D(cid:0)U(cid:0)\(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0) L(cid:0)Q(cid:0)T (cid:0)X(cid:0)L(cid:0)U (cid:0)\(cid:0)(cid:3)(cid:0)"(cid:0)·

In answering the first question in above reference in negative , the Apex Court has taken note of the paragraph-23 of the Constitutional Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah Vrs. Meenakshi Marwah;

(2005) 4 SCC 370 , with approval. For clarity, the paragraph-23 of the aforesaid judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah(supra) is extracted hereunder;-

(cid:0)‡(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0),(cid:0)Q(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)Y(cid:0)L(cid:0)H(cid:0)Z(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)R(cid:0)I(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)W(cid:0)K(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)O(cid:0)D(cid:0)Q(cid:0)J(cid:0)X(cid:0)D(cid:0)J(cid:0)H(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)X(cid:0)V(cid:0)H(cid:0)G

340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1) (b), as the Section is conditioned by the words (cid:0)‡(cid:0)&(cid:0)R(cid:0)X(cid:0)U(cid:0)W(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)L(cid:0)V(cid:0)(cid:3) (cid:0)R(