Application u/s-340 of cr. p. c.
Milap Choraria
(Querist) 07 March 2012
This query is : Resolved
I have strong evidence to initiate inquiry in my application filed u/S-340 of Cr. P. C. But Ld. Court have opinion that they will take it up only after final decision in the main matter. Please inform me any citing from SC Judgment to support my contentions that even prior to final decision inquiry can be initiated.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 March 2012
Judgment of the Supreme Court in Re: Suo Motu Proceedings against R. Karuppan, Advocate, (2001) 5 SCC 289.
It has been held that giving false evidence has become a general practice and Courts should take stern and effective action against such offence and stop taking evasive recourse
Courts are entrusted with the powers of dispensation and adjudication of justice of the rival claims of the parties besides determining the criminal liability of the offenders for offences committed against the society. The courts are further expected to do justice quickly and impartially not being biased by any extraneous considerations. Justice dispensation system would be wrecked if statutory restrictions are not imposed upon the litigants, who attempt to mislead the court by filing and relying upon false evidence particularly in cases, the adjudication of which is dependent upon the statement of facts. If the result of the proceedings are to be respected, these issues before the courts must be resolved to the extent possible in accordance with the truth. The purity of
proceedings of the court cannot be permitted to be sullied by a party on frivolous, vexatious or insufficient grounds or relying upon false evidence inspired by extraneous considerations or revengeful desire to harass or spite his opponent. Sanctity of the affidavits has to be preserved and protected discouraging the filing of irresponsible statements, without any regard to accuracy.
the record of proceedings in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No. 5 of 2000 and Writ Petition No. 77 of 2001, we are prima facie satisfied that the respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition (for the purposes of being used in the judicial proceedings i.e. writ petition), has wrongly made a statement that the age of Dr Justice A.S. Anand has not been determined by the President of India in terms of Article 217 of the Constitution. We are satisfied that such a statement supported by an affidavit of the respondent was known to him to be false, which he believed to be false and/or at least did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 07 March 2012
Milap,
There is no bar of taking action prior to completion of the case.
However, as a practise it is so done.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Milap Choraria
(Querist) 07 March 2012
Many many thanks to Mr. Ajay Sethi, Advocate for his valuable answer and also to Mr. Nadeem and Mr. Shonee Kappor, for their concerns.
Milap Choraria
milap_choraria@yahoo.com
09313713699
Sankaranarayanan
(Expert) 07 March 2012
Yes mr sethi spent his valuable rime for ur query.
H. S. Thukral
(Expert) 08 March 2012
Sub-section (1) of Section 340 CrPC contemplates holding of a preliminary enquiry. The court has to record a finding. This can only be done only when full impact of and veracity of a witness is known. Therefore normally, a direction for filing of a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding before the court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and the final judgment is rendered.
Milap Choraria
(Querist) 09 March 2012
Respected Shri Harbhajan Singh Thukral, in view of two SC Judgments, Citing: 2001 AIR 2204, 2001(3) SCR 750, 2001(5) SCC 289, 2001(4) SCALE 199, 2001(1) Suppl.JT 332
CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 77 of 2001 and Citation: 2002 AIR 236, 2001(5) Suppl.SCR 302, 2002(1) SCC 253, 2001(8) SCALE235, 2001(9) JT 574 CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1188 of 2001, immediate cognisance is expedient in the interest of justice, if aapplicaant have proof of offence of pergery.
