CRPC 125 - Perjury Question

Private

Dear Experts,

 

If a lady files CRPC 125 and mentions in all the three -  main petition, interim petition and chief affidavit that she has no source of income and is entirely dependent on the mercy of her parents.  But she  was working at the time of filing the main petition, interim petition and chief affidavit. She was not awarded interim maintenance but the child was awarded interim. Her cross is completed but we did not ask her whether she is working anywhere or not. Husbands cross is pending. Main case is not yet disposed.

 

Suppression of material fact amounts to fraud with court. Does Perjury apply in CRPC 125 in the above scenario ?

 

Kindly advise. What precautions should be taken to make the perjury petition successful without getting rejected in the family court.

 

Kindly share your tips & suggestions on getting the perjury petition getting admitted successfully. If Perjury is filed, does the main case gets stalled until perjury is decided or does perjury and main case proceed parallelly ?

 

Thanks in advance.

 
Reply   
 
B.Sc, B.L

First of Perjury is to be proved.   You  have to recall her by filing an application under Sec. 311 of Cr.P.C and cross examine her on the aspect, contradicting her by showing any proof if any your client is having. Just a suggestion is nsot sufficientm. Your client has to adduce evidence that the girl is working at the time of the filing of the petitions. If that is proved you have a cse of perjury, then file a complaint on that aspect seperately.

 
Reply   
 


Private

Thanks Mr. Deeksh*tulu for your advise.

I have a question : When the lady has given an affidavit on oath that she does not have any source of Income and entirely dependent on the mercy of her parents, and husband has a (documentary) proof to show to the court that she is working, is it required to summon her u/s 311 Cr.P.C to record her evidence ?

 

My concern is when she is summoned u/s 311 she may say that she was working and forgot to mention in the Main petition/Interim Petition & Chief affidavit, then would it not scuttle the chance of the husband from filing petition u/s 340 Cr.P.C for perjury ? Husband may lose a golden chance of Perjury...

 

Cant the husband initiate Perjury based on the proof and her admission in affidavits given on oath ?

 

Kindly advise ?

 
Reply   
 
Worker

yes he can.

in ur evidence, file the evidence that she was working at the time of filing the petition


then file 340

then prey the court to separate the 340 application from main petition.

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

CRIMINAL APPLICATION No.1115/07.

 

7. Whenever an application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed, the Civil Manual Chapter XIX para 337 requires that it should be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case i.e. a case where a Judicial Enquiry is contemplated. The learned Civil Judge should have, therefore, directed the application to be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case.

8. The section thus says that the court should be of opinion that an enquiry should be held. Even for forming an opinion, there should be some evidence and not mere surmises. If there is a prima facie evidence, the court must enter into an enquiry and record a finding as to whether an offence referred to in Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure is committed.
 


Attached File : 737158253 chapter19.pdf, 737158253 kenneth desa - m.j. case.pdf downloaded 401 times
 
Reply   
 
Worker

Civil Manual Chapter XIX para 337 requires that it should be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case


 

it says Civil Manual requires.


i doubt that this is applicable to criminal cases or not - 

i m not being able to find the answer.


 
Reply   
 
Private

Thanks Mr. Amit  for sharing a judgment.

 
Reply   
 
Worker

now make most of it and also try to find the answer - this is applicable to criminal cases or not ?
 
Reply   
 
Worker

Suppressing Material facts & Filing of successive petition amounts to abuse of Court Process After investigation, chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact and has not disclosed anywhere in this petition that he had approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which stood rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order attained finality as has not been challenged any further. Thus, he is guilty of suppressing the material fact which makes the petition liable to be dismissed only on this sole ground. We are of the view that it was necessary for the petitioner to disclose such a relevant fact. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while deciding the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has made reference to the said order of the High Court dated 3.2.2010. We had been deprived of the opportunity to scrutinise the chargesheet as well as the order of the High Court dated 3.2.2010 and to ascertain as to whether the grievance of the petitioner in respect of the application of the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. had been raised in that petition and as to whether even if such plea has not been taken whether the petitioner can be permitted to raise such plea subsequently. The petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material fact. Admittedly, filing of successive petition before the court amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Thus, we are not inclined to examine the issue any further. REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO.335 OF 2012 Ram Dhan Versus State of U.P. & Anr J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 14.11.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Revision No.4259 of 2011 by which the High Court has rejected the said revision petition against the impugned order dated 3.9.2011 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bagpat, rejecting the application under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called `Cr.P.C.’). 2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this petition are that present petitioner Ram Dhan lodged an FIR dated 4.6.1995 alleging that his son Dinesh had disappeared and, subsequently, filed a complaint against Balraj alias Billu and others (respondents) under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called IPC). The investigating agency concluded the investigation and filed a chargesheet on the basis of which trial commenced against the respondents Balraj etc. and the trial Court vide judgment and order dated 11.5.2005 convicted the respondent No.2 Balraj and others for the offences punishable under Section 364 read with Section 149 IPC and awarded sentence of 9 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved, Balraj, respondent No.2 and others preferred an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad which was admitted and the respondent No.2 and other convicts were granted bail by the High Court. The petitioner’s son for whose kidnapping Balraj, respondent No.2 and others had been convicted, came back home and disclosed to the public as well as to the police that he had not been kidnapped rather had voluntarily gone to Punjab, where he worked for several years. Balraj, respondent No.2 realised that he had been wrongly enroped and convicted in the offence by the petitioner. Thus, he filed an FIR on 29.8.2009 under Sections 177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. After investigating the case, chargesheet was filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC on 23.11.2009. 4. The petitioner filed an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate contending that the FIR at the behest of the respondent No.2, Balraj was not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the said application vide order dated 3.9.2011. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 3.9.2011 by filing a criminal revision before the High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 14.11.2011. Hence, this petition. 5. Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that the prosecution of the petitioner is illegal and liable to be quashed in view of the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C, for the reason that as the offence has been committed in the court, such a drastic action can be taken against the petitioner only on a complaint lodged by the court and not by the convict/respondent No.2. 6. We find no merit in the petition. After investigation, chargesheet has been filed against the petitioner and others under Sections 177, 181, 182 and 195 IPC. The petitioner has suppressed the material fact and has not disclosed anywhere in this petition that he had approached the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the chargesheet, which stood rejected vide order dated 3.2.2010 and the said order attained finality as has not been challenged any further. Thus, he is guilty of suppressing the material fact which makes the petition liable to be dismissed only on this sole ground. We are of the view that it was necessary for the petitioner to disclose such a relevant fact. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while deciding the application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. has made reference to the said order of the High Court dated 3.2.2010. We had been deprived of the opportunity to scrutinise the chargesheet as well as the order of the High Court dated 3.2.2010 and to ascertain as to whether the grievance of the petitioner in respect of the application of the provisions of Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. had been raised in that petition and as to whether even if such plea has not been taken whether the petitioner can be permitted to raise such plea subsequently. 7. In such a fact-situation, the courts below may be right to the extent that question of discharge under Section 239 Cr.P.C. was totally unwarranted in view of the order passed by the High Court on 3.2.2010. For the reasons best known to the petitioner, neither the copy of the chargesheet nor of the order dated 3.2.2010 passed by the High Court have been placed on record. 8. Be that as it may, the chargesheet has been filed under Sections 177, 181, 182, 195 and 420 IPC. Section 177 IPC deals with an offence furnishing false information. Section 181 IPC deals with false statement on oath. Section 182 IPC deals with false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person. Section 195 IPC deals with giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable withimprisonment for life or imprisonment. 9. At least the provisions of Sections 177 and 182 deal with the cases totally outside the court. Therefore, the question of attracting the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted. Section 195 IPC makes fabrication of false evidence punishable. It is not necessary that fabrication of false evidence takes place only inside the court as it can also be fabricated outside the court though has been used in the court. Therefore, it may also not attract the provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C. (See: Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr. , (1998) 2 SCC 493). 10. Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has placed a very heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in Abdul Rehman & Ors. v. K.M. Anees-ul-Haq, JT (2011) 13 SC 271. However, it is evident from the judgment relied upon that the judgment in Sachida Nand Singh (Supra), which is of a larger Bench, has not been brought to the notice of the court. (See also: Balasubramaniam v. State & Anr., (2002) 7 SCC 649). The petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material fact. Admittedly, filing of successive petition before the court amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Thus, we are not inclined to examine the issue any further. Considering the composite nature of the offences, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned order. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. ………………………………….J. (DR. B.S. CHAUHAN) …….……………………………J.

Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

Indeed a very painstaking effort by Mr. Amit to give the author some information as what he can do about it.  It is very clear that she has not come to court with clean hands and has lied before the court on oath, which can be viewed very seriously more so eligible for a perjury case, this case can be taken up simultaneously as a separate case, this may not be combined with the main case.


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 
Private

Thanks Mr. Amit & Adv. Kalaiselvan.

Yes it is a good judgment by Apex court.

Infact I have listed this judgment as reference for my 340 petition.

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

Search Forum:








×

  LAWyersclubindia Menu