Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Mahesh Baburao Dhavale, is the father of a minor victim girl. The accused faced trial in Special Case (POCSO) No. 155 of 2017 for offences under Sections 354A, 324, 323, 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 8 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The trial court acquitted the accused of all charges. However, in the operative portion of the judgment, clause (vi) directed the registration of an FIR against the appellant (PW-4) for giving false evidence. The appellant challenged this direction by way of appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined whether the trial court had jurisdiction to issue such a direction without following the procedure under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The court noted that Section 340 CrPC requires a preliminary inquiry and a formal complaint in writing before a court can prosecute a person for perjury. The trial court's direction was issued without any such inquiry or opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The High Court held that the direction was without jurisdiction and illegal. The court also observed that the appeal was maintainable as the appellant was an aggrieved person. Consequently, the High Court quashed clause (vi) of the trial court's order and set aside the Regular Criminal Case No. 2323 of 2022 pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivajinagar, Pune.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 340 - Power to Prosecute for Perjury - The trial court's direction to register an FIR against PW-4 (father of victim) for giving false evidence is without jurisdiction as the court did not follow the mandatory procedure under Section 340 CrPC, which requires a preliminary inquiry and a formal complaint in writing. The direction was issued in the operative part of the judgment without any inquiry or opportunity of hearing. (Paras 5-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 195 - Bar on Taking Cognizance - The court cannot take cognizance of offences under Sections 193 and 211 IPC except on a complaint in writing by the court under Section 340 CrPC. The direction to register an FIR circumvents this bar and is illegal. (Paras 7-8) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Inherent Powers - The High Court can exercise its inherent powers to quash an illegal direction that is without jurisdiction and causes abuse of process of court. The appeal is maintainable as the appellant is an aggrieved person. (Paras 11-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court, while acquitting the accused in a POCSO case, had the jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR against the father of the victim for perjury without following the procedure under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. Clause (vi) of the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 22/04/2022 passed by the learned Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Special Case (POCSO) No. 155 of 2017 is quashed and set aside. Consequently, Regular Criminal Case No. 2323 of 2022 pending before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivajinagar, Pune is also quashed and set aside.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC
- Section 195 CrPC
- Section 193 IPC
- Section 211 IPC
- POCSO Act
- 2012
- jurisdiction of criminal court
- power to direct registration of FIR
- appeal against acquittal
- maintainability of appeal
