|Originally posted by : Augustine Chatterjee
||How can perjury be maintainable at the stage of investigation? It is not a statement made on oath. If the offences have been stated to have been committed at the same stage of the day and the same date, then it is not possible that the complainant omitted to mention serious offences such as 376/354 etc and instead only alleged offences such as 323/341. Therefore the second FIR is bad in the eyes of the law as the same amounts to abuse of the process of the court, Quashing is the best option at this stage. Rest is upto the querist.
I would like to highlight first few lines of CrPC 340 as follows:-
When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of section 195,
So whenever false statements are given (Such as false FIR) in front of a lawful authority can be prosecuted under 340 CrPc (Perjury) when upon an application made to it in this behalf by the accused.
So if application is maintainable if made on top of.
An FIR is also an evidence as per Indian Evidence Act (Circumstantial Evidence) since it is taken in front of lawful authority hence false FIR is punishable u/s 193 IPC.
Do you have any lawful documents to show that 340 CrPC is not maintainable?