Sec 340
Shweta
(Querist) 21 May 2012
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sirs,
I am aware that in case of false affidavits/evidence against a party under Sec 138 NI Act, a case can be lodged against the person under Sec 340 Crpc.
My query is a little further with this respect. SO, in case a present case is going on against Mr X under Sec 138 NI Act at the MM's Court but Mr X wants to file a case against the petitioner under 340 CrPC, can Mr X file fresh case before the same MM during the pendency of the present case?
And which other section will come into play?
I appreciate the help.
Thank you.
Adv.R.P.Chugh
(Expert) 21 May 2012
If a false affidavit or evidence is given in judicial proceedings. Fresh cognizance in seperate proceedings whether before the same judge or not are barred. S.195 bars the jurisdiction of ordinary courts with respect to perjury/forgery of docs in custodia legis (court's custody) fabricating false evidence - in these cases since the course of law is perverted the law permits only the court or public servant concerned to complain. S.340 application may be made before the same judge, who would after a preliminary enquiry complain before JM1/MM concerned who would take cognizance and proceed. The Judge can also summarily punish those filing false affidavit.
DEFENSE ADVOCATE.-firmaction@g
(Expert) 21 May 2012
First of all take proper steps and you can win the NI 138 case, it is easy simple and sure.
Regarding CRPC 340 there are lot of misconceptions.
1) There may be different views possible for any given fact and so it is not false evidence.
2) Second most important factor developed by the Supreme court is COSTODIA LEGIS, which immensely reduces the possibility of false evidence proceedings.
Shonee Kapoor
(Expert) 22 May 2012
I concur and it would largely depend upon the kind of evidence which is led in the court.
if the case is about forgery of documents subsequently used in case, a seperate complaint is maintainable.
Regards,
Shonee Kapoor
harassed.by.498a@gmail.com
Shweta
(Querist) 22 May 2012
Thank you for the replies.
Basically in this matter Mr A filed a case against Mr X under sec 138 using a false affidavit claiming that Mr X is the Director of the defaulting company.
Now Mr X wants to file fresh lit against Mr A for using false evidence as Mr X was never a Director which Mr X can prove.
So for clarification sake, under 340, as previously mentioned, Mr X cant initiate a case? The cognizance would have to be taken by the MM whose presiding over the Sec 138 case?
Also, there is no other remedy (way to start fresh case) than to have the MM take the initiative?
I deeply appreciate the help.
Thank you.
Shweta
(Querist) 22 May 2012
Thank you for the replies.
Basically in this matter Mr A filed a case against Mr X under sec 138 using a false affidavit claiming that Mr X is the Director of the defaulting company.
Now Mr X wants to file fresh lit against Mr A for using false evidence as Mr X was never a Director which Mr X can prove.
So for clarification sake, under 340, as previously mentioned, Mr X cant initiate a case? The cognizance would have to be taken by the MM whose presiding over the Sec 138 case?
Also, there is no other remedy (way to start fresh case) than to have the MM take the initiative?
I deeply appreciate the help.
Thank you.
