9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1658 - SC - Indian LawsLegality of the proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - grant of interim injunction - High Court on account of the contradictory stand taken by the appellant herein who was the first respondent before the High Court took the view that the conduct of the appellant has affected the administration of justice and therefore it was expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint against the appellant under Section 340 of the Code. HELD THAT - The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred in Section 340(1) of the CrPC having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. In the interests of justice the matter needs to be laid to rest. The appeal is hence allowed. The impugned order to the extent of initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC is set aside - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Challenge on legality of proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the High Court. Analysis: The judgment concerns the challenge to the legality of proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated by the High Court. The High Court initiated these proceedings based on the contradictory stand taken by the appellant, affecting the administration of justice. The appellant had filed contradictory documents and declarations in the judicial proceedings, leading the High Court to believe that the appellant deliberately misled the court, affecting the administration of justice. The High Court directed the Registrar to file a complaint against the appellant under Section 340 of the Code. However, the appellant contended that the High Court did not follow the procedure under Section 340(1) of the CrPC. The court explained that for initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, two pre-conditions must be met: there must be a prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC, and it must be expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into the alleged offence. The court clarified that making a contradictory statement is not sufficient for prosecution; it must be shown that false statements were intentionally made or fabricated to be used as evidence in judicial proceedings. The court emphasized that the opinion to initiate an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC should be based on a prima facie satisfaction of the offence committed. The court may conduct a preliminary inquiry but it is not mandatory. Even after forming an opinion, the court has discretion on whether to file a complaint, considering the interests of justice and the facts of the case. The court cited previous judgments to support the procedural requirements under Section 340 of the CrPC. The court found that the High Court did not follow the necessary procedure in forming the opinion to file a complaint under Section 340 against the appellant. Therefore, the court set aside the initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC, stating that the matter needed to be laid to rest in the interests of justice. The appeal was allowed, and no costs were awarded. In conclusion, the judgment delves into the procedural aspects of initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC, emphasizing the importance of meeting the pre-conditions and following the prescribed procedure. The court highlighted the need for a prima facie case and the discretion of the court in deciding whether to file a complaint based on the interests of justice and the facts of the case. The judgment ultimately set aside the initiation of proceedings under Section 340, aiming to bring closure to the matter in the interests of justice.
|
