Action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood impacting justice, and mere repetition of allegations is insufficient for prosecution.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant petition under Sections 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 379 BNSS is at the behest of the informant, namely, opposite party No.2 for a direction to initiate action against the petitioner in terms thereof for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 193 , 195, 199 & 200 I.P.C. expedient in the interest of justice on the grounds stated.

2. According to opposite party No.2, the action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is necessary, since, the petitioner has filed multiple false affidavits in the proceedings before this Court for self and co-accused husband pending disposal with the plea that the details of the chargesheet have not been revealed, rather, containing false and misleading averments and in so far as the case at hand is concerned, the same is evident from the list of the dates and events described by her. It is further pleaded that the accused husband is claimed to be the Director of Lumex Resources Pvt. Ltd., a fact, which is outrightly false, inasmuch as, he was never holding any such position in the company. The statement that the partnership firm managed by the petitioner and her husband had been amalgamated with the company is again a falsehood, for the reason that both the accused persons claimed such amalgamation by a Board Resolution to that effect, which was later ascertained to be incorrect and the partnership firm still exists independently as on date. It is alleged by opposite party No.2 that the averments in the revision petition are completely false with regard to the claim of the petitioner about the company having been formed. It is also alleged that the date of remand has been falsely stated and the same is also misleading on a bare perusal of the pleading on record. Referring to the facts pleaded further, it is stated by opposite party No.2 that there is suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, since no Official Liquidator was ever appointed and no such order of liquidation was passed since because the Resolution Professional was appointed by the NCLT, who during forensic audit had figured out that there has not been any business undertaken by the company and the amount was misappropriated through various other shell companies as there were nil assets and the company was dissolved without the process of liquidation. It is pleaded that the NCLT, in the order of dissolution of the company, had categorically mentioned that the aggrieved parties shall be at liberty to continue or to take appropriate legal recourse against the Directors. Furthermore, it is alleged that the conditions of the agreement stipulates that the loan availed is to be utilized for Chrome export while the reports of the Department of Customs have clarified that there has not been any such export either by the partnership firm or the company owned by the petitioner and her husband and not only that, the amount of misappropriation (personal and joint liability) has been falsely stated to be Rs.70 lac, which is factually incorrect. According to opposite party No.2, there has been misrepresentation of facts by the petitioner and the co-accused with regard to the documents pertaining clientele base revealed to them and besides that, the investigation unearthed the fact that the documents showing the transactions to have been forged and fabricated and that apart, one of the shell companies was formed after the loan was availed from opposite party No.2. With other facts pleaded, it is finally alleged by op