LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Case under section 209 ipc

(Querist) 03 October 2017 This query is : Resolved 
Dear Experts,

I am facing a case of DV Act in delhi

In this case my wife claimed her self unemployed and demanded maintenance.

In response to this false case i filed application u/s 340 CrPC and 191, 193 199 and 209 IPC claiming that she is working and earning 35,000 p.m. with evidence ( for evidence i filed her salary slips and her salary a/c statement.)

Court rejected her interim maintenance and also application of perjury saying that there are strong evidence to prove that complainant is working but there is no need to proceed under section 340 crpc.

Question: May i file a complaint case against my wife under section 191, 193 199 and 209 IPC.

Rajendra K Goyal (Expert) 03 October 2017
May go for appeal against orders regarding sec 340 Cr. PC.
Vijay Raj Mahajan (Expert) 03 October 2017
For prosecution for perjury u/s 191, 193 , 199 and 209 IPC, the competent complainant is the court where perjury commited. You are just an informer and under section 340 Cr. P. C you informed the competent court. It's the discretion of the court to proceed for perjury against your wife but that court refused to do so.
What reason given by the court for not doing so? If that reason is not justified than definitely you can file revision against that order to higher court.
Vikas (Querist) 03 October 2017
Dear Sir,

I agree that its the court discretion whether to proceed with section 340 or not?

But if court decide not to proceed with 340 what are options left for the victim who faces false cases.

Should i file case u/s 209 IPC ( for filing false claim in the court because Delhi HC stated that once false claim filed in the court offence is completed.
Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 04 October 2017

Sir, the denying of application under Section 340 Cr.Pc has caused grave injustice to you as a major portion of your story has been denied a chance to be tabled before the court. In this regard you may appeal before a High Court under Article 134 of the Constitution proving to the superior court the expedient nature of the application and plead before it to order a reversal of the subordinate court’s rejection of the application under Section 340 and that the petition be carried forth after considering the application
Vijay Raj Mahajan (Expert) 04 October 2017
Ms. Usha Kapoor, since when the High Court got appellate jurisdiction under Article 134 of the Constitution of India in regard to criminal matters? Please clarify.
Vijay Raj Mahajan (Expert) 04 October 2017
Vikas, if you studied the Delhi High Court Judgement clearly that you posted here, you'll see its the jurisdiction of the trail court to proceed with the complaint under 340 Cr.P.C read with section 209 IPC for filling false case. In clear words the Delhi High Court has expressed " Before making a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court shall consider whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint."
Once it prima facie appears that an offence under Section 209 IPC has been made out and it is expedient in the interest of justice, the Court should not hesitate to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
What all this means that you as an individual cannot file complaint under section 209 IPC, its the trail court that can only do so on your application which it has rejected, now move against that order in revision and try to get order in your favour.

Vikas (Querist) 04 October 2017
Adv Vijay,

I know i can file appeal but i don't agree with the view that victim who faces false cases has not right to file any case against the person who files false case.

Vijay Raj Mahajan (Expert) 04 October 2017
Yes as a victim you can file criminal complaint against her for defamation u/s 499,500 IPC as well civil suit for defamation against her.
Ms.Usha Kapoor (Expert) 04 October 2017
Sorry! IT is not Article 134 of Indian constitution but Article 227 of Indian constitution which mentions superintendence of High courts in appeals and revisions over subordinate courts in civil and criminal matters as explained below::

It is interesting to recall two landmark decisions delivered by High Courts and adorning the judicial archives. In Balkrishna Hari Phansalkar Vs. Emperor, AIR 1933 Bombay 1, the question arose before a Special Bench: whether the power of superintendence conferred on the High Court by Section 107 of Government of India Act 1915 can be controlled by the Governor-General exercising his power to legislate. The occasion arose because of the resistance offered by the State Government to the High Court exercising its power of superintendence over the Courts of Magistrates established under Emergency Powers Ordinance, 1932. Chief Justice Beaumont held that even if power of revision is taken away, the power of superintendence over the courts constituted by the ordinance was still available. The Governor-General cannot control the powers conferred on the High Court by an Act of Imperial Parliament. However, speaking of the care and caution to be observed while exercising the power of superintendence though possessed by the High Court, the learned Chief Justice held that the power of superintendence is not the same thing as the hearing of an appeal. An illegal conviction may be set aside under power of superintendence but - "we must exercise our discretion on judicial grounds, and only interfere if considerations of justice require us to do so."

In Manmatha Nath Biswas Vs. Emperor, (1932-33) 37 C.W.N. 201, a conviction based on no legal reason and unsustainable in law came up for the scrutiny of the High Court under the power of superintendence in spite of right of appeal having been allowed to lapse. Speaking of the nature of power of superintendence, the Division Bench, speaking through Chief Justice Rankin, held that the power of superintendence vesting in the High Court under Section 107 of the Government of India Act, 1915, is not a limitless power available to be exercised for removing hardship of particular decisions. The power of superintendence is a power of known and well- recognised character and should be exercised on those judicial principles which give it its character. The mere misconception on a point of law or a wrong decision on facts or a failure to mention by the Courts in its judgment every element of the offence, would not allow the order of the Magistrate being interfered with in exercise of the power of superintendence but the High Court can and should see that no man is convicted without a legal reason. A defect of jurisdiction or fraud on the part of the prosecutor or error on the "face of the proceedings" as understood in Indian practice, provides a ground for the exercise of the power of superintendence. The line between the two classes of case must be, however, kept clear and straight. In general words, the High Court's power of superintendence is a power to keep subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority, to see that they do what their duty requires and that they do it in a legal manner.I THINK THIS Clarification helps regarding appellate jurisdiction of Highcourts under Article 227 of Indian both civil and criminal matters.

You need to be the querist or approved LAWyersclub expert to take part in this query .

Click here to login now

Similar Resolved Queries :

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query