LIVE Online Course on NDPS by Riva Pocha and Adv. Taraq Sayed. Starting from 24th May. Register Now!!
LAW Courses

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Vijay   14 July 2017

Perjury case

Dear Experts,

 

I am facing trial of DV Act filed by my wife.

In this case she is seeking maintenace for herself, She filed an affidavit stating that she is unemployed. Thus unable to maintain herself.

I counter this by filing Application of perjury u/s 193,195 and 340 Cr.P.C.with evidence like her Salary Slip with Salary A/c statement which shows that her salary is 35,000 

 

But judge rejected the Application of perjury saying that because evidence is available that she is working so there is no need for further enquiry as prescribed u/s 340 Cr.P.C

 

Question:

But now it is proved that she willfully lied before the court. So, why not she should be prosecuted for that?

 

 



Learning

 13 Replies

JASWANT VIJAY AGNIHOTRI (AIR ARMY)     14 July 2017

YOU CAN APPEAL TO HIGH COURT.

CALL ME 9478743247. I AM NOT AN ADV

Siddharth Srivastava (Advocate)     14 July 2017

You can challenge the order in high court.

2 Like

Sachin (N.A)     14 July 2017

Thank you Mr Sidharth for this reply.

The querist PM Me this when i also suggested him the same " But my lawyer said 340 CrPC can be used only when it is  expedient in the interest of justice.

How to convince the session court that it is in the interest of justice ? "

 

 

 

Sachin (N.A)     14 July 2017

In my view every false affidavit or claim which "affects the merit of the case" comes under the preview of perjury.

So it is " expedient in the interest of justice"

But i couldn't find any judgement for the same.

May be other members can help

JASWANT VIJAY AGNIHOTRI (AIR ARMY)     15 July 2017

चाहे केस बन रहा हो या नहीं बन रहा हो फिर भी सेशन कोर्ट या जिला न्यायालय का जज यह नहीं कह सकता कि यह मामला दर्ज ही नहीं किया जा सकता किसी भी मामले में प्रथम दृष्टया इंक्वायरी होना जरूरी है उस पर अनुसंधान होना आवश्यक है यदि कोई भी जज ऐसा नहीं करता है तो वह नियमों का उल्लंघन कर रहा है इसलिए ऐसे कुछ जजमेंट है एक बॉन्बे हाईकोर्ट कराएं एक इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट का है जो मेरे पास भी मौजूद है और मैंने खुद ने भी पर जरुरी कर रखा है यह भी इन जजमेंट्स को लगा कर के या उनको जज के सामने रखा जाए तो हो सकता है कि आप के मामले में किसी भी प्रकार के आगे की करवाई बन सकती है यदि दिल नहीं मान रहा हूं तो मुझे फोन करना मैं आपको वो जजमेंट भेज दूंगा
1 Like

Vijay   15 July 2017

Originally posted by : JASWANT VIJAY AGNIHOTRI
चाहे केस बन रहा हो या नहीं बन रहा हो फिर भी सेशन कोर्ट या जिला न्यायालय का जज यह नहीं कह सकता कि यह मामला दर्ज ही नहीं किया जा सकता किसी भी मामले में प्रथम दृष्टया इंक्वायरी होना जरूरी है उस पर अनुसंधान होना आवश्यक है यदि कोई भी जज ऐसा नहीं करता है तो वह नियमों का उल्लंघन कर रहा है इसलिए ऐसे कुछ जजमेंट है एक बॉन्बे हाईकोर्ट कराएं एक इलाहाबाद हाईकोर्ट का है जो मेरे पास भी मौजूद है और मैंने खुद ने भी पर जरुरी कर रखा है यह भी इन जजमेंट्स को लगा कर के या उनको जज के सामने रखा जाए तो हो सकता है कि आप के मामले में किसी भी प्रकार के आगे की करवाई बन सकती है यदि दिल नहीं मान रहा हूं तो मुझे फोन करना मैं आपको वो जजमेंट भेज दूंगा

 

Sir,

 

Kindly send the judgement. Kindly check your PM for my email address.

Thanks

Arjun Kohli   15 July 2017

Hi

As I can understand from the inputs from other members, once again the matter rests upon the discretion of the Judge sitting on the dias, because of the highlighted term up there, "in the interests of justice". I have found a judgment which you can follow up at this link. (Here, the maintenance order was already passed by the court on basis of false evidence. Hence, perjury was easily granted but in your case it hasn't been granted, I believe?)

Hence, in my opinion, it can be well defended that since no order of maintenance was passed, no harm was done, and hence the liability to be prosecuted under Perjury could be done away with. However, what you could try is to engage the court in a different manner and appeal to a higher court against the said order, highlighting the rampant practice of perjury in such cases and the need to set a deterrence, sooner than later so that for the greater good of all, no one dares to file false evidence, etc. etc. You get what I mean. Frame your appeal well and you might as well hit the right nerve, no assurances though.

1 Like

Vijay   15 July 2017

Originally posted by : Arjun Kohli
Hi

As I can understand from the inputs from other members, once again the matter rests upon the discretion of the Judge sitting on the dias, because of the highlighted term up there, "in the interests of justice". I have found a judgment which you can follow up at this link. (Here, the maintenance order was already passed by the court on basis of false evidence. Hence, perjury was easily granted but in your case it hasn't been granted, I believe?)

Hence, in my opinion, it can be well defended that since no order of maintenance was passed, no harm was done, and hence the liability to be prosecuted under Perjury could be done away with. However, what you could try is to engage the court in a different manner and appeal to a higher court against the said order, highlighting the rampant practice of perjury in such cases and the need to set a deterrence, sooner than later so that for the greater good of all, no one dares to file false evidence, etc. etc. You get what I mean. Frame your appeal well and you might as well hit the right nerve, no assurances though.

 

You are right court has rejected the maintenace for her but i want to pursue the case of purjury 

 

Can you explain, do i need to file appeal u/s 195 IPC read with 341 crpc?

or only in 341 CrPC

Vijay   15 July 2017

Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh
Court is correct, no inquiry made u/s 340 CrPC in your case, with the meaning of Sec. 3 of IEA 1872.
Its an oral document made under oath ant not an evidence to prove violation in your case i.e. Expedient to interest of justice.

 

false affidavit attracts section 340 crpc and other sections related to perjury

Moreover in her affidavit she herself stated that  if anything is found false in her affidavit she is ready to face case of section 191,193,209

then why not?

Arjun Kohli   15 July 2017

Originally posted by : Vijay



Originally posted by : Ramesh Singh



Court is correct, no inquiry made u/s 340 CrPC in your case, with the meaning of Sec. 3 of IEA 1872.
Its an oral document made under oath ant not an evidence to prove violation in your case i.e. Expedient to interest of justice.





 

false affidavit attracts section 340 crpc and other sections related to perjury

Moreover in her affidavit she herself stated that  if anything is found false in her affidavit she is ready to face case of section 191,193,209

then why not?

In my opinon, frame an appeal, citing her own words in the affidavit, annex the copy and appeal against the said order and frame a prayer in a  manner, appealing to the Court to let the Court take cognizance of the matter under the suitable provisions of law. You could use conjunctions like "and/or" to make it more productive. 

1 Like

Vijay   15 July 2017

Sir,

Should i file appeal u/s 341 crpc 

or 

341 Crpc read with 195 ipc

Ms. Usha Hegde (CEO)     15 July 2017

You cant prove anything.  Simply go for mutual divorce and end matter.

Raveena Kataria (Advocate )     16 July 2017

Originally posted by : Vijay

Originally posted by : Arjun Kohli

Hi

As I can understand from the inputs from other members, once again the matter rests upon the discretion of the Judge sitting on the dias, because of the highlighted term up there, "in the interests of justice". I have found a judgment which you can follow up at this link. (Here, the maintenance order was already passed by the court on basis of false evidence. Hence, perjury was easily granted but in your case it hasn't been granted, I believe?)

Hence, in my opinion, it can be well defended that since no order of maintenance was passed, no harm was done, and hence the liability to be prosecuted under Perjury could be done away with. However, what you could try is to engage the court in a different manner and appeal to a higher court against the said order, highlighting the rampant practice of perjury in such cases and the need to set a deterrence, sooner than later so that for the greater good of all, no one dares to file false evidence, etc. etc. You get what I mean. Frame your appeal well and you might as well hit the right nerve, no assurances though.

You are right court has rejected the maintenace for her but i want to pursue the case of purjury 

Can you explain, do i need to file appeal u/s 195 IPC read with 341 crpc?

or only in 341 CrPC

 

Hi! I'd have to agree with what's been aforestated. There's more likelihood of your perjury application being accepted if the maintenance suit filed by the wife has been rejected. However, in your case, the proceedings are still going on. You are not supposed to file fresh cases yet, take a local advocate's assistance to help you with the ongoing case so as to be able to disprove your wife's accusations, (if illfounded,) so the maintenance order is not passed against you. You haven't mentioned, but please enlighten if possible as to under what section of d/v your wife has made a complaint. 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Start a New Discussion Unreplied Threads



Popular Discussion


view more »




Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query