This Punjab and Haryana High court judgment says that if an application under CrPC 340 is moved (for filing false affidavit in this case), then the court must undertake the procedure for CrPC 340 in disposing that application. It was not correct on part of trial court to refer cursorily to the mentioned fact of false affidavit in judgment, and thus dismissing the CrPC 340 application by being silent on the issue.
So the takeaway for people facing false 498a and maintenance cases is to go for perjury application under CrPC 340 if you have good evidence like false affidavit, wrongly mentioned fact about not-working, wrong salary mentioned etc.
——————————————————————————–
http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1512317/
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 1 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.
Read my maintenance book (DV and CrPC 125) if you want to save HARD EARNED money (Kindle eBook version) (Print Paperback version)
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues(PDF book)
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.
CRA No. 197 SB of 2010 (O&M) 3 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
RSK
NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes/No
My wife said to the court that she was tried to be killed at 4 pm but in doctors injury report she was treated at 1.30 pm on same day corroborating witness of doctor. And two other witness said that case was registered on 27.04.15 whereas actual date of case registration was 13.11.15. Now case ended with acquittal on 8.8.18. If case u/s 340 crpc possible?
Witnesses statement may not be basis of perjury case since it may be said that they may have forgotten, or maybe they were not real witnesses, but police/IO had put their statement just to make the case for a prima-facie credible chargesheet.
Point about doctor treating at 130 pm suggests wife’s statement is incorrect as regards to timing, but doesn’t say that it’s a false statement altogether. So it doesn’t seem material enough to attract perjury.
About possibility of filing CrPC 340 after disposal of case:
I could not find anything definitive by way of case law on this. On bare reading of CrPC 340 and offences under CrPC 195, it doesn’t seem there is any bar on filing perjury case after disposal of case.
CrPC 340: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/908644/
CrPC 195: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/621703/
In CrPC 195, the word used is ‘proceeding’. Whether the meaning of word proceeding is restricted to pending case only or includes disposed cases also, is not clear.
Sir,
I have in a case with very influential people who have taken ex partite stay in civil case on my address and My neighbours name in 2016.court has remained vacated for six months and they have also not submitted a letter to extend stay and as per the lawyers the stay is not there as on last date they have not put up an application for extension of stay.The questionaire send by me for clearification of stay if it is there or not has not answered in yes or no and says see certified copy,
One more lawyer asked the same so the concerned person refused to answer the questionaire.Kindly advice if there is a way to get a clear reply if there is a stay or not.Kindly advice a procedure in which they can be forced to reply what all are my options and ways to get the questionaire answered.it is also important to do this quickly because of some very critical reasons in another case.its a regular suit.Thanks.
These questions can either be answered by your advocate, OR if you don’t believe you are being guided properly; then only option is to start reading relevant sections in Code of Civil Procedure.
I am facing civil suits in two different courts and there are a lots of false affidavits being filed. The case is in the issue state and in other case the name of party is different but they got ex partite stay.now can I file a separate criminal case under crpc 340 195 and prove their false affidavit.
It’s difficult to comment on merit of case, but no need to wait if false affidavit is filed.
IPC 195 is not applicable in most cases, so don’t just copy-paste for readymade templates online, which seem to be using IPC 195 as catch-all for all CrPC 340 cases. Use the right sections from IPC 191 onwards.
Can I file an application under 340 in my revision appeal case of maintainance order (u/s 125) given by trail court wherein misleading & wrong information/ facts were put against me. While my income from last 3 years has been around 2lacs pa, other party claimed my income to be 12-15 lacs.
That won’t fall under perjury
On basis of…
[1] Application U/s 12 of D.V.Act & 20 documents in its support the Applicant-1 filed, and
[2] writ petition Cri.WP:3685/2013 the Petotioner-1 filed before Hon’ble High Court, and
[3] supporting 31 documents Petitioner-1’s Learned Advocate has personally filed in very writ petition,
I am filing an application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. in Cri.Misc.Appl. No.45 of 2012 pointing out to how Applicant-1 and her Learned Advocate as to how …
(a) concealed relevant material facts like Applicant-1’s Salary Income and Applicant-1’s ownership in TWO flats from Hon’ble Court, (b) suppressed from and did not allow to come relevant material documents like Applicant-1’s Salary Slips & Property papers of TWO flats the Applicant-1 owns before Hon’ble Court, (c) irrelevant documents like her character certificate showing that Applicant-1 had resined in past & her mother’s bank statement showing she had issued cheque of Rd.4,33,333/- and Applicant-1’s loan is cleared. (d) mislead & misrepresented facts to Hon’ble Court, (e) prepared’Bogus’ documents like fake paper workvLeave & License Agreement, (f) filed in court process (g) as evidence (h) for purpose of cheating & (i) well deliberately cheated this respondent (j) and Hon’ble Courts (k) & obtained favourable orders including Ex-party Stay Order, and (l) are are enjoying benefits of their own wrongs.
I could fortunately got their past criminal records with sound evidences, that they had same & similar crimes in court process and were punished U/s 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC for 3 years rigours imprisonment. Learned Advocate is on bail from Hon,’ble Karnataka High Court.
I had complained (No.254/2013) against learned advocate before Hon’ble Bar Association, with still no results.
I had also complained to Hon’ble Prime Minister. On 08.08.2017 Law & Judiciary Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400032 have written letter to the Secretary of Bar Council Mumbai ‘for taking necessary action.
I expect the wrong doers should be punished. And the respondents get justice. It will also be a lesson for those who abuse law.
Perjury is strong and filed in courts so 340 CrPC filed after dismissal 341 CrPC filed and dismissed is a clear case of corruption as more than 100 rulings of Apex court and H’courts given in written argument. So in my opinion only SLP,case in h’court u/s340(2) CrPC or notice u/s 51A{(h) to all the highest level of India by laws for action immediately.
Respected sir ,
Recently i am submitting Perjury again my wife in section 191 & 195 ,in crpc340 . Perjury is very strong because she told in oath she is not working & i am submitted PF detail from 2009 to 2014 march.she claimed interim from 2012 November.Rs 1500 per month. recent i loose my job also , i said to judge but judge waiting for his Say(reply)
Now question is If perjury is strong then why judge waiting for say . give me a concrit judgement emideat stop interim & through the file in dustbin.
I can’t say about the specific reason in this case why judge is not giving the order.
In general, one should remember that men want to be white knights and protector of women, and judges won’t be immune to that psychology either. It is statistically proven that women get lesser punishment for same crimes than men. Google it.
Many men themselves who approach us don’t seem to have much desire to pursue the case to its logical end, they just want a to know “how to get out of these cases”, maybe because they have hopes of finding another female after their cases are over. That is also known to the System, which wants to milk husbands to the maximum extent but will conveniently find multiple ways of not prosecuting the women/wives for false cases and allegations.
Did the case reach logical conclusion. I am stuck in a similar case as it’s. And I am putting all my strength to get a perjury verdict. It would help me if you could share the judgement.
Some SC judgments are here on CrPC 340:
http://bharatlaw.in/search?q=crpc%20340
This is very helpful. Thanks a lot.
Your work is really a morale booster..
Regards.
Manish