Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns a Civil Application filed under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by Satyanarayan Nandkishore Pande (the applicant) against Vinay Jagdishchandra Pande and others (the respondents) in connection with a pending Writ Petition. The applicant alleged that the respondents had given false evidence and produced forged documents in the proceedings. The Court first addressed a preliminary issue raised by the respondents' counsel, Mr. Madon, as to whether the accused should be heard before the Court decides on issuing a complaint under Section 340 CrPC. After hearing both sides, the Court held that while the section does not expressly require hearing the accused at the initial stage, it is not prohibited and the Court may, in its discretion, hear the accused to determine if a prima facie case exists. The Court then examined the merits of the application and found that the applicant had not made out a prima facie case of false evidence or forgery. The Court noted that the allegations were vague and unsupported by clear evidence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the Civil Application, holding that no complaint under Section 340 CrPC was warranted. The judgment emphasizes that the power under Section 340 CrPC is to be exercised sparingly and only when the interests of justice require it.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury Proceedings - Section 340 CrPC - Preliminary Issue of Hearing Accused - The Court held that while Section 340 CrPC does not mandate hearing the accused before issuing notice, it is not prohibited; the Court may exercise discretion to hear the accused to determine if a prima facie case exists. In this case, the Court heard the accused and found no prima facie case. (Paras 1-3)
B) Criminal Procedure - False Evidence - Section 340 CrPC - Prima Facie Case - The Court must apply its judicial mind to the allegations and the evidence on record before directing a complaint. The applicant failed to demonstrate that the respondents intentionally gave false evidence or produced forged documents. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Court should issue notice to the accused before deciding an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether a prima facie case for perjury is made out against the respondents.
Final Decision
The Court dismissed the Civil Application, holding that no prima facie case for perjury was made out against the respondents, and therefore no complaint under Section 340 CrPC was warranted.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC requires a prima facie case of false evidence
- Court must apply judicial mind before filing complaint
- Preliminary issue of hearing accused before issuing notice is not mandatory but discretionary
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 69
Civil Application No. 497 of 2018 in Writ Petition No. 4009 of 2017
Mr. Nilesh Ojha instructed by Ms. Reena Rana, Mr. Vijay Kurle, Mr. Aameer Kale, Ms. Madhuri Gamre, Ms. Shweta Doshi, Ms. Tanvi Kambli and Ms. Arpana Bhosale for the Applicant; Mr. Madon, Learned Senior Advocate along with Mr. Sharan Jagtiani and Mr. Aditya Shiralkar instructed by M/s. Shiralkar and Company for the Respondents
Satyanarayan Nandkishore Pande
Vinay Jagdishchandra Pande, Mrs. Kusumlata Jagdishchandra Pande, Mrs. Vandana Shyam Shringi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against the respondents for allegedly giving false evidence and producing forged documents in a pending writ petition.
Remedy Sought
The applicant sought a direction to file a complaint against the respondents for offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 209, 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474, 475, 476, 477, 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, or any other relevant sections.
Filing Reason
The applicant alleged that the respondents had given false evidence and produced forged documents in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 4009 of 2017.
Issues
Whether the Court should hear the accused before deciding an application under Section 340 CrPC?
Whether a prima facie case for perjury is made out against the respondents?
Submissions/Arguments
Mr. Nilesh Ojha for the applicant argued that the respondents had intentionally given false evidence and produced forged documents, and that the Court should not hear the accused at the preliminary stage.
Mr. Madon for the respondents argued that the accused have a right to be heard before the Court decides to file a complaint, and that the allegations were baseless.
Ratio Decidendi
The power under Section 340 CrPC to file a complaint for perjury is to be exercised only when a prima facie case of false evidence or forgery is established. The Court must apply its judicial mind to the allegations and evidence before directing a complaint. In this case, the applicant failed to make out a prima facie case.
Judgment Excerpts
The above Civil Application is filed under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Shri Satyanarayan N. Pande...
After hearing the Advocates at length on several adjourned dates, the decision on the preliminary issue was reserved for orders.
Procedural History
The Civil Application was filed in 2018 in connection with Writ Petition No. 4009 of 2017. A preliminary issue regarding hearing the accused was raised and argued. The judgment was reserved on 23rd July 2018 and pronounced on 22nd December 2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 340, 195
