Case Note & Summary
The writ petition challenged an order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed, in Misc. Civil Application No. 255 of 2011, directing filing of a complaint under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) against the petitioners for alleged perjury. The petitioners, Ramesh Komatwar and Ashok Jadhav, were defendants in a civil suit filed by the respondent, Jubedabegum Kazi. The respondent alleged that the petitioners had made false statements in their written statement and evidence. The learned District Judge, after hearing the parties, found that the statements were prima facie false and directed prosecution. The petitioners challenged this order on the ground that there was no deliberate falsehood and that the proceedings were an abuse of process. The High Court, after considering the submissions, held that the order was passed without proper application of mind and that no prima facie case for perjury was made out. The court emphasized that Section 340 CrPC requires a finding that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute, which was not established. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the rule was made absolute.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 340 CrPC - Perjury - Prima Facie Case - The court held that before directing filing of a complaint for perjury, there must be a prima facie case that a false statement was made intentionally and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute. The order was set aside as the allegations did not meet this threshold. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Principal District Judge was justified in directing filing of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC for alleged perjury in the absence of a prima facie case.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed, in Misc. Civil Application No. 255 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC
- prima facie case
- perjury
- abuse of process
- criminal prosecution
- civil remedy
Case Details
2013 LawText (BOM) (04) 9
Writ Petition No. 5378 of 2012
Shri K.K. Kulkarni for Petitioners, Shri S.S. Thombre for Respondent
Ramesh S/o Raghunath Komatwar and Ashok S/o Limbaji Jadhav
Jubedabegum Abdul Kadar Kazi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order under Section 340 CrPC directing prosecution for perjury.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 06.03.2013 passed by the Principal District Judge, Beed, in Misc. Civil Application No. 255 of 2011.
Filing Reason
The petitioners alleged that the order directing prosecution for perjury was without prima facie case and amounted to abuse of process.
Previous Decisions
The learned Principal District Judge, Beed, passed an order on 06.03.2013 in Misc. Civil Application No. 255 of 2011 directing filing of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC.
Issues
Whether the learned Principal District Judge was justified in directing filing of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC for alleged perjury in the absence of a prima facie case.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that there was no deliberate falsehood and the proceedings were an abuse of process.
The respondent supported the order, contending that false statements were made intentionally.
Ratio Decidendi
Before directing filing of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC, the court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case that a false statement was made intentionally and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute. In the absence of such satisfaction, the order is liable to be set aside.
Judgment Excerpts
This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 06.03.2013, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed, in Misc. Civil Application No. 255 of 2011.
Procedural History
The respondent filed Misc. Civil Application No. 255 of 2011 before the Principal District Judge, Beed, seeking prosecution of the petitioners under Section 340 CrPC. The learned Judge passed an order on 06.03.2013 directing filing of a complaint. The petitioners challenged this order by way of writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and finally disposed of on 15.04.2013.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 340
