2016 (10) TMI 1375 - HC - Indian Laws

Perjury - petitioner had suppressed her true income - whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that such prosecution would be necessary? - HELD THAT - This Court notices that the Court has elaborately discussed the law and applied the said law to the facts to hold that the petitioner has not stated the correct facts on oath. She has stated that she was doing household work and has no source of income while her income is Rs.40,000/per month from the business. She has of course, revealed that she has received sum of Rs. 4 lakhs from the earlier marriage. With regard to the income tax returns, she is found to have given false evidence. With regard to the fixed deposit and the amount that has been credited in her FDR, she stated that she has no knowledge with regard to her accounts in Central Bank of India and Rajkot Cooperative Bank. The husband also examined the witness, who was Inspector in the IncomeTax Department, wherein she submitted her personal income and her incometax returns have been brought on the record to indicate that from the year 201112 she has income from business at Rs.1,48,251/. The business profit was worth Rs.1,84,251/- - The Court on noticing that she was getting sufficient income from the fixed deposit receipt and yet has not admitted in the evidence produced by her stating that she has no source of income, had directed the initiation of the prosecution under section 195 read with section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As can be noticed from the chronology of events and the evidence that has been adduced before the Court concerned, it is certain that the injury which could have been sustained by the other side has not resulted on account of this alleged falsehood because respondent No.2 could find out at an appropriate time the details which he has furnished before the Court. So far as its impact on the administration of justice is concerned, this Court has no reason to interfere as often it is found that the litigants coming before the Court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence - Laws which are otherwise in favour of the distressed wife when are sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trial Court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the order passed by the Family Court below Exh.88 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.346 of 2013.

Analysis:
In this case, the petitioner, who is the wife, challenged the order passed by the Family Court below Exh.88 in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.346 of 2013. The petitioner claimed that she was deserted by her husband in August 2012 and subsequently filed an application under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code for herself and her son. The trial Court recorded evidence on both sides and directed the Registrar of Family Court to file an application before the police station under sections 191, 192, and 193 of the Indian Penal Code based on an application by the respondent husband.

The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 6/09/2016 and requested a stay on its implementation. The petitioner's advocate argued that the Court erred in appreciating the evidence, specifically regarding the petitioner's income tax return, and that there was no need to prosecute the petitioner for perjury. On the other hand, the respondent's advocate contended that the petitioner had not disclosed receiving permanent alimony and her true income, justifying the Court's decision to initiate proceedings against her.

The Court found that the petitioner had not revealed her true income and had given false evidence regarding her financial status. The Court noted discrepancies in the petitioner's statements about her income, including amounts received from her previous marriage and her business income. The Court also considered evidence from the Income Tax Department and the bank regarding the petitioner's undisclosed income and fixed deposits. The Court directed the initiation of prosecution under sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Court referenced legal precedents to emphasize the importance of forming an opinion on the expediency of prosecution in the interest of justice. It highlighted that the decision to prosecute should consider the impact on the administration of justice rather than the magnitude of the injury suffered by the affected party. The Court concluded that the prosecution was necessary in this case due to the petitioner's false statements impacting the administration of justice.

Ultimately, the Court found no justification to interfere with the trial Court's order, noting that the petitioner would have the opportunity to defend herself effectively. The Court emphasized the misuse of laws meant to protect distressed parties when incorrect facts are declared and material aspects are suppressed, leading to a direction for prosecution to uphold the administration of justice.

In conclusion, the petition was disposed of with the above directions, maintaining the trial Court's decision to initiate prosecution against the petitioner under sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.