Criminal Trident Pack: IPC, CrPC and IEA by Sr. Adv. G.S Shukla and Adv. Raghav Arora
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Perjury complaint us 195-340

(Querist) 04 September 2021 This query is : Resolved 
perjury application u/s 195-340 was filed with prayer send it to Sho police FIR etc.

After evidence and my statement etc. Court ordered on next date arguments on summoning,

No order passed on our prayer of send application complaint to SHO police for FIR etc..,
Is it correct lawful proceedings, ???, Court need to pass speaking, reasoned order, for not sending to police for FIR..please advise...
Dr J C Vashista (Expert) 05 September 2021
SHO has no power / authority to deal with a case under section 340 read with 195 Cr PC.
There is some confusion / misconception.
Pradipta Nath (Expert) 05 September 2021
Proper facts has to be stated for legal appraisal.
Adv K Rajasekharan (Expert) 05 September 2021
It is not lawful for the court to refer your application to SHO for registering an FIR under 340/195 CrPC.

What is envisaged in the law is an inquiry by the court, but not an investigation by the police. The court has no power to refer the application to the police. The court however can conduct an inquiry, in this regard. Whether such an inquiry is mandatory or not is not yet a well settled matter.
The Section 340 CrPC applies when if the Court is of the opinion that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195 (1) (b), committed in a proceeding or in a document produced in evidence in that Court. If so, the Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, record a finding to that effect and thereafter make a complaint in writing to the Magistrate to take action.

Some SC decisions such as Pritish v State of Maharashtra [(2002) 1 SCC 253] states that it is open for the Court to conduct or not to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter before lodging a complaint in respect of an offence mentioned in Section 195(1)(b). But there is a contrary view in cases like Sharad Pawar v Jagmohan Dalmiya [ (2010) 15 SCC 290].

Finding these contradictory decisions, a two-judge bench, in its decision, referred this matter to a larger bench than a 3-judge bench in February 2020.

What is referred to is that in such an inquiry whether the section 340 CrPC mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused, before a complaint is made under section 195 of the Code by a Court. It would examine the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry.
P. Venu (Expert) 05 September 2021
In the instant case, the Court is following the correct procedure. However, Courts are rather passive in prosecuting perjury matters the judicial officer concerned need to step into the witness box.

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

Click here to login now

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query