Judge not pursuing my perjury complaint (u/s 340)


i filed a perjury complaint u/s 340 in the DV case (after the interim got dismissed on the basis of concealment of factc etc) as my wife lied, concealed facts and stated contradictory facts. have been requesting the judge for the last several dates to pursue it further but she said that she will look into it later and will first decide the DV case, and that she will first make my wife give her statement in the DV case as she has to lead her evidence.. an appeal that my wife filed against the interim order also got dismissed.

what to do folks ? can i file an application requesting the judge to decide perury first ?

 
Reply   
 

Always remember judges don't want to pursue in perjury case. 

File application to court to decide perjury first. And attach these two judgments

Allahabad HC- Court should dispose of the application U/s 340 CrPC first

Court should dispose of the application U/s 340 CrPC first
Court : High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Brief : : if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.

 

 

 

Court No.29
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ Petition No. (56) of 2002

 
Syed Nazim HusainVs.The Additional Principal
Judge Family Court & another

 

Hon’ble A. Mateen, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A.

Since a very trivial point is involved I propose to dispose of the petition at this initial stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that the order dated 24.10.2002 be quashed.

From the order dated 24.10.2002 it comes out that the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court on the application, moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. instead of disposing of the same had postponed disposal of the said application and ordered that said application may be disposed of after evidence is recorded in case No. 566/89.

In my view, if an application is moved in the pending case bringing to the notice of the court that any false evidence knowing well has been filed or fabricated in such proceedings, the court should dispose of the said application first before proceeding any further or before recording of further evidence.

In the circumstances, I dispose of the present application and direct the Additional Principal Judge Family Court to dispose of the application so moved by the petitioner under Section 340, 344 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in accordance with law.

With the above observations the petition is disposed of finally.

9.1.2003 sd- A.Mateen

 

CrPC 340 procedure cannot be bypassed by trial court

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH                               CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M)

Date of decision: 25-1-2010

Sunny Bhumbla ………Appellant Vs

Shashi ………Respondent CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

Present: Shri K.S.Boparai, Advocate, for the appellant. HARBANS LAL, J.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 5.12.2008 Annexure P-1 passed by the court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Saheed Bhagat Singh Nagar vide which he allowed the petition moved under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, for restitution of conjugal rights leaving the parties to bear their own costs and rejected the application moved under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted with great eloquence that after the respondent admitted in her cross-examination about her employment, salary and inheritance
of the landed property, she again placed on record another affidavit dated 27.8.2008 solemnly affirming therein that she had inadvertently not mentioned about the source of income as well as employment in the earlier affidavit dated 14.8.2008. Thereafter the appellant moved an application under Section 195 of Cr.P.C.
 for initiating proceedings against the respondent for submitting a
false affidavit CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 2 before the learned trial Court, in order to get more maintenance from the appellant. The learned trial Court had assured the appellant that his said application shall be decided alongwith the main case. While deciding the main petition, in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment it has been observed that “in support of her claim for interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, the
respondent/applicant had made certain assertions, which were found to be totally false and the same had apparently been done by her in a deliberate manner. Consequently even an application for initiating suitable proceedings against her on account of her having submitted a false affidavit was also filed
by the petitioner on 3.9.2008. Thereafter, the respondent did not press her claim for interim maintenance, but the same did not absolve her of the liability of the aforesaid lapse. This court, however, does not wish to initiate any such proceedings against the respondent with the hope that sooner or later, the parties may be in a position to resolve their dispute or else this young couple may adopt such other means so that they can part their ways
in a peaceful manner and therefore, with a view to avoid undue complication of the matrimonial dispute, no action on account of submitting of the above false affidavit etc. is being initiated against the respondent.”

It is further argued that the learned trial Court has overlooked
the fact that the respondent has used the false affidavit in the judicial
proceedings. Therefore, all the ingredients of the offences of cheating,
forging and perjury etc. are made out and consequently, the order passed by the
learned trial Court in not initiating the proceedings under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. is illegal.

I have given a deep and thoughtful
consideration to these submissions.

A careful perusal of the observations rendered by the learned trial
Court in paragraph No. 13 of the impugned judgment would reveal that there is
not even a shred of reference to the application moved under Section 195 read
with Section 340 Cr.P.C. This apart, no specific reasons have been apportioned
for not initiating the action on the basis of the alleged affidavit. The said
application having been moved under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure was required to be disposed of separately. It was not desirable on the part of the learned trial Court to decide the said application in a slip shod manner by making mere passing reference to the alleged affidavit.
 In the application moved under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. if the Court deems fit, the inquiry has to be held whereas in the present one, the impugned order is
absolutely silent as to whether or not inquiry was held. There is specific
procedure which is to be followed while disposing of an application moved under
Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Section 340 of the Criminal
Procedure Code reads as under:-


“340.Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec.195–(1) When, upon an
application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of the opinion
that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made
into any offence referred to to in cl (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195,
which appears to have been committed in or in relation to to a proceeding in
that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of of a document produced or
given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 4
such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary.

(a) record a finding to that effect.

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction.

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before
such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court
thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate;
and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.

(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an
offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under
sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the
making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court
is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Sec.195.

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed (a)
where the Court making complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court
as the Court may appoint.

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court,
and            (4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in CRA No.
197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 5 Sec.195.”

A glance through the impugned order would reveal that the learned
trial Court has given a go by to the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The
approach adopted by the learned trial Court is unwholesome and is depreciable.

The impugned order is absolutely silent as to whether the application has been dismissed or allowed, if so for which reasons. In consequence of the preceding discussion the trial Court is directed to decide the application under discussion in accordance with law. This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

(HARBANS LAL)

JUDGE

January 25, 2010

 

 

 

 

 


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 



@Renuka

Firstly judge have not done anything illegal till yet.

Secondly District judges are for civil cases , session court is the appellate authority for criminal cases and DV is criminal case

Thirdly Supreme court knows about all this read this famous judgement.

 

Supreme Court:- Why Trail Judge not make complaints u/s 340 CrPC for Perjury?

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

PETITIONER:                  SWARAN SINGH

Vs.

RESPONDENT:    STATE OF PUNJAB

DATE OF JUDGMENT:            26/04/2000

BENCH:            Ruma Pal, D.P. Wadhwa

HEAD NOTE:-

Dismissing the appeals, the Court Held : Per Ruma Pal, J

1.1. The eye-witnesses’ accounts of the accused persons’ involvement in the crime are not only consistent but were duly corroborated by mate-rial evidence. The enmity between the accused and deceased was estab-lished. Thus, Courts below were justified in convicting and sentencing the accused- appellants. [581-G; 582-B]

1.2. Accused `SS’ has admitted his presence at the scene of occur-rence with loaded double barrel gun and a cartridge belt. His defence that he had not fired by any shots and the deceased in a drunken State were the aggressors cannot be accepted in view of the medical evidence. According to the Chemical Examiner’s report, the alcohol concentration found in the viscera of deceased neither showed that it had been consumed immediately prior to the occurrence nor was it sufficient to make the deceased inebri- ated. [582-C]

2. The site plan, photographs showing position of deceased persons and the blood stained earth collected from the spot supports the prosecution case that the deceased were killed at the spot next to the truck and not near accused SS’s house as claimed by him. If indeed the deceased were shooting indiscriminately as alleged by the accused there would have been some pellets on the walls of SS’s house. It was not even suggested to any of the witnesses in the prosecution that there were pellets or pellet marks near SS’s house. Thus, both the Trial Court and High Court rightly rejected the story of accused to explain the presence of the truck at the scene of occurrence. Further, the fact that the hitting was at close range supports the evidence of the eye-witnesses and runs contrary to the defence account of the incident. [581-G-H; 582-A]

Forensic Science in Criminal Investigation & Trials (3rd Edn.) P. 280; Fisher, Svensson and Wendel’s Techniques of Crime Scene Investigation (4th Edn. P. 296), referred to.

3.  Merely because one portion of the evidence of eye-witnesses is disbelieved does not mean that the Courts were bound to reject all of it. Thus, non-acceptance of evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 by Courts below regarding the involvement of `M’ will not render their evidence regarding involvement of appellants unbelievable. [583-D]

4.  PW-1, Doctor has stated in his cross-examination that both the deceased could have met their death at about 4 P.M. on the fateful day, but this does not by itself establish the fact that the deceased were killed at 4 P.M. The evidence of PW 1, in chief was that the death could have been caused within 24 hours prior to the post-mortems. Therefore, PW-1’s evidence is equally consistent with the case of the prosecution that the incident took place at 7.45 P.M. [583-H]

5. Minor discrepancies in the testimony of PW-5, Investigating Officer, are not sufficient to discard the case of the prosecution or to throw doubt on the eye-witnesses’ testimony. Furthermore, the Trial commenced about three years after the incident and it is not unlikely that the Investi- gating Officer could not remember the details of the investigation. [584-G]

Per Wadhwa, J. (Supplementing):

1. A criminal case is built on the edifice of evidence, evidence that is admissible in law. For that witnesses are required whether it is direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. Here are the witnesses who are a harassed lot. A witness in a criminal trial may come from a far-off place to find the case adjourned. He has to come to the court many times and at what cost to his own self and his family is not difficult to fathom. It has become more or less a fashion to have a criminal case adjourned again and again till the witness tires and gives up. It is the game of unscrupulous lawyers to get adjournments for one excuse or the other till a witness is won over or is tired. Not only that a witness is threatened; he is abducted; he is maimed; he is done away with; or even bribed. There is no protection for him. Then appropriate diet money for a witness is a far cry. Proper diet money must be paid immediately to the witness and even sent to him and he should not be left to be harassed by the subordinate staff. If the criminal justice system is to be put on a proper pedestal, the system cannot be left in the hands of unscrupulous lawyers and the sluggish State machinery. All the subordinate courts, should be linked to the High Court with a computer and a proper check is made on the adjournments and recording of evidence. [585-G-H; 586-A-D]

2. Perjury has also become a way of life in the law courts. A trial judge knows that the witness is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing the complaint. Perhaps law needs amendment to clause (b) of Section 340(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in this respect as the High Court can direct any officer to file a complaint. To get rid of the evil of perjury, the court should resort to the use of the provisions of law as contained in Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. [586-F-G] 

 


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

thanks so much everyone, specially Sid. buddy, do you have a format of this application ? also do u know of any case where this application was filed and it yielded results ?

 
Reply   
 

Yes, I used it in my case.

Judge refused to accept my application of 340crpc by saying " It is premature stage for this application" I argued and won and got my application accepted. And my wife's application of interim maintenance rejected


Total likes : 1 times

 
Reply   
 

great....can you please send the application to me via PM or whatsapp ? i messaged you my number Sidharth. i need it desperately as the next DV date is in 10 days and i have to file it :) i hope u can have a quick word with me over the phone..

 
Reply   
 

LEAVE A REPLY


    

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



 

  Search Forum








×

Menu

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query
CrPC MASTERCLASS!     |    x