In view of Two Supreme Court Judgments, this is mandatory for trial Courts to get inquire the matter as and when application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. are filed. Citing:-
(1) 2005(4)SCC370, 2005(3)SCALE9, 2005(3)JT195, CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 402 of 2005, PETITIONER: Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. RESPONDENT: Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/03/2005; and
(2) 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, PETITIONER: RE: SUO MOTO PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MR. R, KARUPPAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/05/2001
In the above Citing No. 1, Hon'ble Supreme Court interalia holds as follows:-
21. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the Courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted. It will not be fair and proper to give an interpretation which leads to a situation where a person alleged to have committed an offence of the type enumerated in clause (b)(ii) is either not placed for trial on account of non-filing of a complaint or if a complaint is filed, the same does not come to its logical end. Judging from such an angle will be in consonance with the principle that an unworkable or impracticable result should be avoided. In Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion (Third ed.) para 313, the principle has been stated in the following manner :
"The court seeks to avoid a construction of an enactment that produces an unworkable or impracticable result, since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. Sometimes however, there are overriding reasons for applying such a construction, for example where it appears that Parliament really intended it or the literal meaning is too strong."
The learned author has referred to Sheffield City Council v. Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. (1991) 1 WLR 58 at 71, where it was held as under :
"Parliament is taken not to intend the carrying out of its enactments to be unworkable or impracticable, so the court will be slow to find in favour of a construction that leads to these consequences. This follows the path taken by judges in developing the common law. The common law of England has not always developed on strictly logical lines, and where the logic leads down a path that is beset with practical difficulties the courts have not been frightened to turn aside and seek the pragmatic solution that will best serve the needs of society."
In S.J. Grange Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (1979) 2 All ER 91, while interpreting a provision in the Finance Act , 1972, Lord Denning observed that if the literal construction leads to impracticable results, it would be necessary to do little adjustment so as to make the section workable. Therefore, in order that a victim of a crime of forgery, namely, the person aggrieved is able to exercise his right conferred by law to initiate prosecution of the offender, it is necessary to place a restrictive interpretation on clause (b)(ii).
In the above Citing No. 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court interlia holds as follows:-
In India, law relating to the Offence of perjury is given a statutory definition under Section 191 and Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, incorporated to deal with the offences relating to giving false evidence against public justice. The offences incorporated under this Chapter are based upon recognition of the decline of moral values and erosion of sanctity of oath. Unscrupulous litigants are found daily resorting to utter blatant falsehood in the courts which has, to some extent, resulted in polluting the judicial system. It is a fact, though unfortunate, that a general impression is created that most of the witnesses coming in the courts despite taking oath make false statements to suit the interests of the parties calling them. Effective and stern action is required to be taken for preventing the evil of perjury, conceitedly let loose by vested interest and professional litigants. The mere existence of the penal provisions to deal with perjury would be a cruel joke with the society unless the courts stop to take an evasive recourse despite proof of the commission of the offence under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code. If the system is to survive, effective action is the need of the time.