Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Liber A. Vaz, was working as a Second Division Assistant at the JMFC Court, Savanur. He was arrayed as accused No.4 in a case arising out of a complaint filed by the Chief Administrative Officer of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Haveri, under Section 195(1)(b)(i)(ii) read with Section 340 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 194, 195, 463, and 466 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The complaint was based on an order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in S.C. No.28/2015, directing the Chief Administrative Officer to file a complaint against accused Nos.1 to 4. Subsequently, the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, took cognizance and issued process against the accused. The petitioner challenged both the order directing the complaint and the order taking cognizance, insofar as it related to him. The core legal issue was whether an opportunity of hearing must be given to a person before a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is made against him. The petitioner argued that no hearing was afforded to him before the Sessions Judge directed the filing of the complaint. The respondent State contended that the procedure under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was followed. The High Court, relying on the principles of natural justice and the language of Section 340 Cr.P.C., held that an opportunity of hearing is mandatory before making a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The court observed that the requirement of hearing is not dispensed with by Section 344 Cr.P.C. and that the person sought to be proceeded against must be given a chance to be heard. Consequently, the court quashed the order dated 18.09.2017 insofar as it directed the filing of a complaint against the petitioner and the order dated 21.09.2017 taking cognizance against him, and remitted the matter back to the Sessions Judge for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 340 - Opportunity of Hearing - Mandatory - Before making a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for offences relating to false evidence, the court must give an opportunity of hearing to the person against whom the complaint is to be made. The court held that the requirement of hearing under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not dispensed with by Section 344 Cr.P.C. and that principles of natural justice demand such hearing. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the person sought to be proceeded under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. at the stage of making a complaint against him under Section 344 of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The order dated 18.09.2017 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, in S.C. No.28/2015, insofar as it directs the Chief Administrative Officer to file a complaint against the petitioner/accused No.4, and the order dated 21.09.2017 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hangal, in CC No.234/2017 (PC No.111/2017), insofar as it relates to the petitioner/accused No.4, are quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, for fresh consideration after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Opportunity of hearing is mandatory before making a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
- Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires a preliminary inquiry and hearing
- Section 344 Cr.P.C. does not dispense with hearing requirement
- Principles of natural justice apply to proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
