Men Rights India

Men Rights, Man Sense!

  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts
You are here: Home » Uncategorized » Applicability of section 340 of CrPC, and 194 of IPC etc

Applicability of section 340 of CrPC, and 194 of IPC etc

16 Mar 2010 By videv 1 Comment

A case of perjury under CrPC 340 where even though some witnesses had given contradictory statements in civil and criminal cases between same parties, a perjury case under CrPC 340 was not allowed by high court, due mainly to technicalities about applicability of CrPC 340 to facts of the case.

You can read the important points made bold in the full judgment below:

CRM No.23818-M of 2009 1    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM No.23818-M of 2009

Date of Decision: 4.09.2009

Smt.Sanjay Lata & Anr. …Petitioners  Vs.

The State of Haryana & Anr. ..Respondents     Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod
K.Sharma

Present: Mr.V.P.Singh, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr.Rajeev Kawatra, Sr.DAG, Haryana.

for respondent No.1.

Mr.H.N.Mehtani & Mr.V.P.Kashyap, Advocates,

for respondent No.2.

—

1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the
judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest?

—

CRM No.23818-M of 2009 2    Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral)

This petition under section 482 Cr.PC has been moved for  quashing
of complaint dated 14.10.2006 filed under section 194 IPC by  Shri R.S.Virk,
Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhiwani, pending in the court  of learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate Bhiwani.  Smt.Sanjay lata filed a complaint under sections
302/498-  A/406 and 120-B IPC against Amrit Gautam and others on the pleadings
that ever since her marriage on 27.4.1996 she was not given due recognition  and
instead of her having studied up to M.A,. B.Ed. level and her parents  having
spent 3 lacs on her marriage accused/husband and his relatives were  not
satisfied with the dowry brought by her and she was taunted time and  again with
the demand of fridge, scooter and Rs.5000/- (Rupees fifteen  hundred only),
besides gold neckless, Saris etc to which she expressed her  inability. It was
also pleaded that she was assaulted and even starved,  wrongly confined in the
room during summer and was even bolted inside a  bath room in December, 1996.
She was even denied use of quilt with a view  to ensure her death by exposure to
the cold.  It was further case set up that she had given birth to a male  child
on 5.9.1997. In spite of the fact that he was only 2.6 kilograms in  weight and
she was also very weak, the accused forcibly got her discharge  from the said
hospital on 7.9.1997 and did not allow her parents and  relatives to see the new
born child in the hospital or at her matrimonial  home. It was pleaded that
accused No.5 uncle of the accused brought some  liquid in a spoon which he had
administered to the new born by picking up CRM No.23818-M of 2009 3    in his
own arms and thereafter the child remained motionless and shortly it  was
discovered that he had expired. Other allegations were also levelled  claiming
prosecution of the accused for the offences referred to above.  The accused was
tried. Learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,  Bhiwani found the complaint to be
false and consequently acquitted the  accused
The operative part of the order
reads as under:-  “19. In view of the above appraisal of prosecution evidence, I
hold that the complaint in hand was falsely instituted by the  complainant out
of malice and ill-will towards the accused  husband and his co-accused, all of
whom are hereby acquitted  of the offences they stand charged with.
As discussed
above,  the complainant Sanjay lata and her father Sham Sunder stand  proved to
have deposed falsely specially qua their testimony in  the instant complaint
case regarding ill treatment of the  complainant wife in connection with demand
of dowry by the  accused husband Amrit, although while appearing as RW 1 and  RW
4 respectively during the hearing of HMA petition No.19  of 11.3.1999 titled
Amrit Lal Gautam Vs. Sanjay Lata decided  on 7.9.2001 in favour of accused
husband, they had admitted  that the accused/husband had never ill treated the
complainant  wife nor ever demanded any dowry. Such two contradictory  versions
in two courts of law by these two witnesses indicate  that these two witnesses
have scant concern for the law of the  land
. Such conduct cannot be viewed
lightly, specially when CRM No.23818-M of 2009 4    through the false complaint
in hand these two witnesses have  sought conviction of the accused for a capital
offence.  Accordingly in the light of the provisions contained in Section  185
(1)(b)(i) Cr.PC read with section 340 Cr.PC
, I am of the  considered view that
the complainant Sanjay Lata and her  father Sham Sunder should be tried, not
summarily under  Section 344 Cr.PC, but in the light of provisions contained in
Section 344 (3) Cr.P.C., they should be sent up to the court of  competent
jurisdiction to stand regular trial qua commission by  them of an offence
punishable under section 194 IPC
. File be  consigned to the record room,after
due compliance.”  Copy of the order was sent to the court of CJM, Bhiwani to
prosecute the petitioner under section 194 IPC.  The parties have settled their
dispute.

The petitioner sought quashing of complaint primarily on the  ground
that mere fact that a witness made contradictory statement on 2  different
stages in judicial proceedings is not by itself always sufficient to  justify
the prosecution for perjury. In support of this contention reliance is  placed
on the judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of  Sanjiv Arora Vs.
State of Rajasthan 2008 (2) C.C.J. 310. The contention  of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, therefore, is that even if the  allegations are taken on its
face value no offence under section 194 IPC is  made out.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that initiating CRM
No.23818-M of 2009 5    criminal proceedings is illegal and has been passed in
violation of the  provisions contained under section 340 Cr.PC. Section 340
Cr.P.C. Reads as  under:-

Section 340 of the Code of criminal Procedure reads as under:-
“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195:- (1) When,  upon an
application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any  Court is of opinion
that it is expedient in the interest of Justice  that an inquiry should be made
into any offence referred to in  clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195,
which appears to  have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that
Court, or as the case may be, in respect of a document produced  or given in
evidence in a proceeding in that Court, 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 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 CRM
No.23818-M of 2009 6    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  Section 195.

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed-  (a) where
the Court making the 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.  (4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in Section  195.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the  judgment
of this court in Crl. Misc. No.3220-M of 1986 titled as  H.S.Grover, Accounts
Officer Vs. Rajinder Singh decided on 4.8.1986  wherein this Hon’ble Court has
been pleased to lay down as under:-  ” The object of this section is to record a
finding to that  effect and then make a complaint thereof in writing to a Court
of law. Thus, the motivating factor is that such enquiry should  be conducted if
it is expedient in the interest of justice. The  second one is that an offence
of the kind mentioned therein  must appear to have been committed, for which the
Court a one  under section 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, chooses  to
become a complaint.

CRM No.23818-M of 2009 7    In the instant cases, as the facts are patent,
neither of the  two considerations surface
. In the first place, neither of the
two  suits were decided by the trial Judge and the Court had no  occasion to
determine the falsity or otherwise of the documents  produced by the
petitioners.
To repeat here, it is observed that  one suit was dismissed as
withdrawn and the other one went to  the Tribunal to be dismissed. Secondly, the
Court received the  documents allegedly false and forged from the petitioners as
part of the Court files and nowhere were offences committed in  relation to
those documents while the mater was pending in the  court.
In other words,
offences were not committed when the  documents stood filed in the Courts. They
had introduced on the  file as pleadings or proof in the pro-fabricated formed;
in other  words, already falsified and forged. A Full Bench of this curt  in
Crl.Misc. No.5095 M of 1985 (Harbans Singh Vs. State of  Punjab) decided on
7.5.1986 held that in such a situation  section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure would  not be attracted and the Court is not obliged under
the section  195(1)(b)(ii) to be the complainant. Similarly, there was no
occasion to hold the documents and pleadings to be false. Thus,  plainly, on
both aspects of the case, the proceedings against the  petitioners on
applications under section 340 of the Code of  Criminal Procedure are nothing
but abuse of the process of the  Court and deserve to be struck off from the
file of he learned CRM No.23818-M of 2009 8    Judge. It is held accordingly.

For the aforesaid reasons, these petitions, are accepted
and the proceedings against the petitioners are quashed.  Ordered accordingly.”

to contend that the continuation of proceedings, therefore,  would
be nothing but misuse of the process of court as proceedings are in  violation
of statutory provision as the learned court has not recorded a  finding that it
is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry be made into  offence.

The contention raised deserves to be accepted in view of law  laid
down by this court in CRM No.3220-M of 1986 (H.S.Grover Vs.  Rajinder Singh
(supra).

This petition is allowed and the complaint and subsequent
proceedings pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate  Bhiwani,
pursuant to the complaint made by learned Additional Sessions  Judge-I, Bhiwani
are ordered to be quashed.

(Vinod K.Sharma)

4.09.2009 Judge rp

Links to Free eBooks

1. Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle

2. Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online)(PDF book)

Links to Paid eBooks

1. How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act.(Kindle eBook version)

2. How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act (Print Paperback)

3. Self-study Book on Divorce for Men (Kindle Only)

4. Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law (Kindle)

5. Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law (Print Paperback)

Related Posts

  1. Discharge under CrPC 239
  2. Civil and Criminal cases can go on together and independently
  3. How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  4. Gujarat HC allows examining account books of wife’s employer in maintenance case

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: CrPC, CrPC 340, HC Judgment, IPC

Comments

  1. Sanju says

    September 28, 2011 at 2:54 pm

    As the Hon’ble Court stated, offences were not committed when the documents stood filed in the Courts. However, as marked in bold above “the
    Court received the documents allegedly false and forged from the petitioners as part of the Court files” which is an offence under section 192/195/196 IPC. Due to the bar of Section 195, this offence can be taken cognizance of, under a private complaint. As the SC noted in Marwah vs Marwah, the aggrieved person should not be left remedyless.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Men Rights India numbers For 498A/406/Dowry Case/DV/Maintenance/child custody-visitation/abusive-wife/false cases, CALL volunteers' phone lines (for quick guidance only):
(Be respectful to volunteers, & we don't advise on divorce)

1. Kannada/Hindi/English: +919738010456
2. Tamil/English: +919962514226

Join our WhatsApp/Facebook groups for FREE guidance/discussion

Join Our Telegram Channel for FREE updates

Social

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Instagram

Search this website

Important/Must Read/Permanent Posts

  • How to assess your false case and marriage breakup probability
  • How to take action against police or magistrate for 498A arrest without following CrPC 41 41A?
  • Why Indian men should be very careful in filing divorce
  • What to do if CAW cell/police/advocate is putting pressure to compromise
  • Innocent until proven guilty is the law, use it!
  • Advice to men on 498a, maintenance, DV, divorce, child custody, what else
  • How to find and manage your lawyer in 498a, DV, CrPC 125, divorce, RCR cases
  • How to fight false cases of DV, Maintenance, CrPC 125, 498a etc
  • How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • Notes and questions on court procedures
  • What should be my stand in court?
  • Understanding the divorce industry in India

Book: How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act


Buy Print book

(Buy Kindle eBook edition here)

(Information about the Book)

Today’s Popular Posts

  • Section 41, 41A, 41B of CrPC which govern arrest by…
  • Why Indian men should be very careful in filing divorce
  • 498a and maintenance: lose your illusions
  • How to file objections/written statement to…
  • Men ki Baat – Counselling, Discussion of…
  • Procedure of CAW (Crime against women) cell
  • How to complain against judges of trial courts, High…
  • How to handle allegation of impotence by wife
  • How to fight false cases of DV, maintenance, CrPC…
  • 25% (or 50%) of husband’s salary is…

Tags

498A Activism Arrest Child Support Child_Custody_Visitation Commando Gyan Commando Strategy Commando Techniques CrPC CrPC 125 Cruelty Divorce Domestic Violence Industry Dowry DV Act Judgments Evidence False Case False Rape Family Law Feminazis Feminist Figures Feminist Propaganda Fight Back HC Judgment Hindu Marriage Act HMA 24 Law Making Law Misuse Laws Legal Info live-in Maintenance Marriage Men Rights NCW NRI Police Press Release PWDVA(DV Act) Rape RTI SC Judgment Supreme Court WCD Women Reservation Bill

The Benefits of Reading Men Rights India!

before reading MRI
Before


after reading MRI
After

email: I am facing false DV case. I love your blog. It really have me boost to fight this case and I feel so happy that you guys are doing such a commendable work.


comment: Your survey is 100 % true. whatever is written in this blog matches more than 90 % of my marriage life situation.


comment: The Article is really great, it’s actually happening in my life. whatever is mentioned here is the tactics are used by my wife and still going on….


comment: This is a very good article, and some points mentioned here are the real reasons males are threatened to shell out the maintenance amount


comment: This document is very help for me,becoise i am sufring for false dowry case and fiting for them.so thank for to u.


comment: The web content is very useful for its diversity and especially for atrocities committed upon men, emitting a clarion call for them to rise and defend their rights and hood.


comment: Thanks you People doing very may allah grant you Success. Ameen.


comment: This is very helpful. Thanks a lot. Your work is really a morale booster..
Search judgments at Bharat Law
Read judgments at Bharat Law
IPC 498A Judgments
IPC 406 Judgments
DV Act Judgments
CrPC 125 Judgments
Child Custody Judgments

Author on Facebook

Vivek Deveshwar

Free eBook: Surviving the Legal Jungle

Surviving-the-Legal-Jungle-Cover-Image

Featured Posts

Summary of PIL filed in Delhi HC towards gender neutral rape/sexual assault laws

7 Oct 2017 By videv 3 Comments

FIR against wife for alleged bid to extort money from husband by threat of false dowry 498A case

15 Apr 2015 By videv 21 Comments

FREE Live Webinar/Online Meetings for WhatsApp and Facebook members

6 Nov 2015 By videv 4 Comments

Notes and questions on court procedures

27 Jan 2015 By videv 51 Comments

How to search, find, and download electronic copy of FIR uploaded by Police?

29 Apr 2019 By videv Leave a Comment

Equality for Men – Myth or Reality?

Download IMD handbook
Download IMD handbook

Recent Comments

  • videv on How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • P2 on How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • Child visitation monitor New Haven on Strategy for Child Custody for Men
  • videv on How to complain against judges of trial courts, High Courts, and Supreme Court?
  • Kartiken on How to complain against judges of trial courts, High Courts, and Supreme Court?

RSS Feeds

  • All Posts
  • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
  • 498A Judgments

Archives

Copyright © 2009-2020 · Vivek Deveshwar · Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkPrivacy policy