Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Noor Mohammad, filed an FIR against an accused named Nabisab for offences under Sections 447, 324, and 504 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed and C.C.No.240/2013 was registered. During trial, the petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and supported the prosecution in examination-in-chief, but during cross-examination, he took a U-turn and stated that there was no quarrel or assault. Other witnesses turned hostile, and the accused was acquitted. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, while acquitting, observed inconsistency in PW.1's evidence and directed the office to register a separate case against the petitioner for perjury under Section 193 IPC. Consequently, C.C.No.311/2014 was registered, and cognizance was taken. The petitioner approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash these proceedings. The High Court found that the Magistrate had committed a serious incurable irregularity by initiating perjury proceedings without following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC, which requires a complaint in writing after a preliminary inquiry. The court held that the direction to register a case and the subsequent cognizance were illegal and without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition and quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.311/2014.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury Prosecution - Section 340 CrPC, Section 195 CrPC, Section 193 IPC - Mandatory Procedure - The Magistrate cannot suo motu direct registration of a case for perjury under Section 193 IPC without following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC, which requires a complaint in writing after preliminary inquiry. The court held that the Magistrate committed a serious incurable irregularity by directing the office to register a case without adhering to the mandatory procedure, and the subsequent cognizance and issuance of process were illegal. (Paras 4-5)
B) Criminal Procedure - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of Proceedings - The High Court, in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.311/2014, as the initiation of perjury proceedings was without jurisdiction and contrary to law. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Magistrate can suo motu direct registration of a case for perjury under Section 193 IPC without following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC and without a complaint in writing as required under Section 195 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 mandatory before prosecution for perjury
- Section 195 CrPC bar on cognizance without complaint
- Section 193 IPC perjury
- inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (04) 80
Criminal Petition No.200073/2015
Sri Ustad Firasath Hussain for Sri J.Augustin (for petitioner), Sri Prakash Yeli, Addl. SPP (for respondent)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of perjury proceedings initiated by the Magistrate.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of entire proceedings in C.C.No.311/2014 pending before the Senior Civil Judge and CJM at Yadgiri.
Filing Reason
The Magistrate, while acquitting the accused in the original case, directed registration of a separate case against the petitioner for perjury under Section 193 IPC without following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC.
Previous Decisions
The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Yadagiri, acquitted the accused in C.C.No.240/2013 and directed registration of a case against the petitioner for perjury under Section 193 IPC, leading to C.C.No.311/2014.
Issues
Whether the Magistrate could suo motu direct registration of a case for perjury under Section 193 IPC without following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC?
Whether the subsequent cognizance and issuance of process in C.C.No.311/2014 were illegal?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Magistrate committed a serious incurable irregularity by initiating perjury proceedings without following the mandatory procedure under Section 340 CrPC.
Respondent (State) argued through Addl. SPP, but no specific arguments are recorded in the judgment.
Ratio Decidendi
A Magistrate cannot suo motu direct registration of a case for perjury under Section 193 IPC without following the procedure under Section 340 CrPC, which requires a complaint in writing after a preliminary inquiry. Any such direction and subsequent cognizance are illegal and without jurisdiction, liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
But the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate unmindful of the procedure to be followed, committed serious incurable irregularity in initiating a proceeding for the offence under Section 193 of IPC without following the procedure contemplated therein and wrongly directed the office to post the case against him.
This act of the Chief Judicial Magistrate clearly indicates that the order of taking cognizance against the accused is also illegal and without jurisdiction.
Procedural History
Petitioner filed FIR against accused Nabisab under Sections 447, 324, 504 IPC. Police filed charge sheet, case registered as C.C.No.240/2013. During trial, petitioner as PW.1 gave inconsistent statements. Accused acquitted. Magistrate directed registration of separate case for perjury under Section 193 IPC, leading to C.C.No.311/2014. Petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.200073/2015 under Section 482 CrPC to quash proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 340, 195, 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 193, 447, 324, 504
