Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Prakash Aigali, was a prosecution witness in Special Case No.78/2008 pending before the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi, which involved offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It was alleged that the petitioner deposed falsely, thereby committing an offence under Section 193 IPC. The District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, upon being convinced that the petitioner committed the offence, lodged a complaint under Section 340 CrPC. The Chief Administrative Officer, Belagavi, by complaint dated 14.12.2011, forwarded the complaint to the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, which took cognizance and registered C.C.No.02/2012. The petitioner filed two criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the order dated 06.02.2015 and the entire proceedings in C.C.No.02/2012. The High Court examined the complaint and found that the District and Sessions Judge had not recorded any satisfaction that it was expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The complaint was merely forwarded by the Chief Administrative Officer without any application of mind. The court held that the proceedings were not in accordance with Section 340 CrPC and were liable to be quashed. The court allowed the petitions and quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Perjury Proceedings - Section 340 CrPC - Complaint by Chief Administrative Officer - The court held that the complaint was lodged by the Chief Administrative Officer without the District and Sessions Judge recording satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The proceedings were quashed as the complaint was not in accordance with Section 340 CrPC. (Paras 3-5)
B) Indian Penal Code - False Evidence - Section 193 IPC - Requirement of Sanction - The court held that for prosecution under Section 193 IPC, the complaint must be made by the court after proper inquiry and satisfaction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the proceedings are invalid. (Paras 3-5)
C) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of Proceedings - The court exercised inherent powers to quash the proceedings as the complaint was not maintainable for want of proper sanction under Section 340 CrPC. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the criminal proceedings for perjury under Section 193 IPC initiated on a complaint by the Chief Administrative Officer without proper satisfaction under Section 340 CrPC are liable to be quashed.
Final Decision
The court allowed both criminal petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C.No.02/2012 against the petitioner.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC requires satisfaction of the court before lodging complaint
- Section 193 IPC requires false evidence
- Section 482 CrPC inherent powers to quash proceedings
- Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act
- 1988
Case Details
2015 LawText (KAR) (06) 47
Criminal Petition No.100655/2015 c/w Criminal Petition No.10866/2013
Sri. Srinand A. Pachhapure, Sri. V.M. Banakar
Sri. Prakash S/o Dundappa Aigali
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash perjury proceedings initiated against a witness in a corruption case.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 06.02.2015 and the entire criminal proceedings in C.C.No.02/2012 for offence under Section 193 IPC.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the complaint under Section 340 CrPC was not made by the court after proper satisfaction and was invalid.
Previous Decisions
The Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi had taken cognizance and registered C.C.No.02/2012 based on a complaint forwarded by the Chief Administrative Officer.
Issues
Whether the complaint under Section 340 CrPC was validly made without the court recording satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice.
Whether the proceedings under Section 193 IPC are liable to be quashed for non-compliance with Section 340 CrPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the complaint was not made by the District and Sessions Judge but by the Chief Administrative Officer without any application of mind.
Respondent argued that the complaint was valid and the proceedings should continue.
Ratio Decidendi
A complaint under Section 340 CrPC must be made by the court after recording satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice. In the absence of such satisfaction, the complaint is invalid and proceedings based on it are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi upon being convinced that the petitioner has committed the offence was pleased to lodge a complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
The Chief Administrative Officer, Belagavi by complaint dated 14.12.2011 was pleased to forward the complaint to the Court of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi.
The complaint does not disclose that the District and Sessions Judge had recorded any satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint.
Procedural History
The petitioner was a prosecution witness in Special Case No.78/2008 under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The District and Sessions Judge lodged a complaint under Section 340 CrPC for alleged false deposition. The Chief Administrative Officer forwarded the complaint on 14.12.2011 to the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Belagavi, who took cognizance and registered C.C.No.02/2012. The petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.10866/2013 to quash the proceedings and later Criminal Petition No.100655/2015 to quash the order dated 06.02.2015. Both petitions were heard together and allowed on 25.06.2015.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): 340, 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 193
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 13(1)(d), 13(2)
