IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.07.2025 KOTAL SINGH …..Appellant VERSUS SATPAL KAUR AND ORS. …..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. P.P.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant/appellant.

Mr. Naresh Jain, Advocate for the respondent No.1.

****

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (Oral)

1. This appeal has been filed against the Impugned order dated 18.9.2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot whereby the application U/s 340 Cr.PC filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

2. Background of the Case The appellant, Kotal Singh, has moved this application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking initiation of proceedings against the respondent No.1, Satpal Kaur, and other respondents for allegedly giving false evidence during the trial of a rape case filed by respondent No.1 whereby the present appellant stand acquitted vide judgment dated 30.11.2009.

4. Contention on behalf of the appellant Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that respondent No.1, Satpal Kaur, had filed a false complaint against the appellant and several others alleging commission of rape. During the course of the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, the Court vide judgment dated 30.11.2009, categorically held that the complaint was false. The appellant further contended that witnesses examined in support of the complainant’s case namely respondents No.2 to 5 also gave false evidence. The appellant relies on the said judgment and submits that in light of the false testimony, an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is warranted to prosecute the respondents for perjury.

Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by the trial Court suffers from grave illegality, perversity and the same is based upon surmises and conjectures and as such the same is liable to be set aside.

Respondents’ Argument Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the application, contending that the trial court in its judgment did not make any specific observation regarding false evidence being given by any particular witness. It was further submitted that the acquittal of the accused persons in the rape case was primarily due to lack of sufficient evidence rather than any definitive finding of falsehood or perjury. Additionally, it was argued that there is no direction or observation in the trial court judgment recommending proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., which is a necessary prerequisite for invoking such proceedings.

5. Analysis Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) governs the procedure for courts to initiate proceedings against individuals suspected of offences such as perjury or fabricating evidence during judicial proceedings. A key prerequisite for invoking such proceedings is that the court must form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into the alleged offence, and this formation of opinion must typically be reflected in the trial court's judgment as a clear direction, observation, or recommendation for further proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C I have carefully perused the judgment dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, in the rape case. The record reveals that the prosecutrix, Satpal Kaur (respondent No.1) appeared as PW3, while PW2 Rajinder Singh and PW4 Kala Singh did not support the prosecution’s version. The remaining support to the prosecution case came from PW5 Balraj Singh.

The trial court took into account two key affidavits:

 Ex.DE: An affidavit by Mukhtiar Kaur, produced by the defence through DW1 Anil Kumar (Reader to Tehsildar, Faridkot), which contradicted the complainant’s version.

 Ex.DX: An affidavit submitted by the prosecutrix herself to the SSP along with an application, which also contained statements inconsistent with the contents of the criminal complaint.

After evaluating the testimonies and these affidavits, the trial court concluded that the comp