Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Noor Mohammad, had filed an FIR against one Nabisab for offences under Sections 447, 324, and 504 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and the case was registered as C.C.No.240/2013. During trial, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and supported the prosecution case in examination-in-chief, but during cross-examination, he turned hostile and stated that there was no quarrel or assault. The other witnesses also turned hostile, leading to the acquittal of the accused. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while acquitting the accused, observed inconsistency in the evidence of PW.1 and directed the office to register a separate case against the petitioner for the offence under Section 193 IPC. Consequently, C.C.No.311/2014 was registered and cognizance was taken by the same Magistrate, who issued process against the petitioner. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings. The High Court held that while the Magistrate was not wrong in observing the inconsistency, the procedure adopted for initiating perjury proceedings was illegal. The Magistrate failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 340 CrPC, which requires the court to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint, after recording a finding and following the prescribed procedure. The suo motu direction to register a case and the subsequent taking of cognizance and issuance of process without a proper complaint under Section 340 CrPC was a serious incurable irregularity. Accordingly, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.311/2014.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury Proceedings - Section 340 CrPC - Mandatory Procedure - The Chief Judicial Magistrate, while acquitting the accused, directed registration of a separate case against the complainant/witness for giving inconsistent evidence, without following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC. Held that such initiation is illegal and without jurisdiction, as the Magistrate must first form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint, after recording a finding and following the prescribed procedure (Paras 4-5). B) Indian Penal Code - False Evidence - Section 193 IPC - Bar under Section 195 CrPC - The Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence under Section 193 IPC except on a complaint in writing by the court under Section 340 CrPC. The suo motu direction to register a case and issuance of process without such complaint is a serious irregularity and liable to be quashed (Paras 4-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate could initiate proceedings for the offence under Section 193 IPC against a witness who gave inconsistent statements without following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.311/2014 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Yadgiri.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC procedure mandatory before initiating perjury proceedings
- Section 193 IPC cannot be invoked without complaint under Section 195 CrPC
- Magistrate cannot suo motu direct registration of case for perjury
