In Crl.A.No.638 of 2015-MAD HC- To exercise power u/s 340 of CrPC, Court before entertaining complaint should satisfy itself if it is expedient in interest of justice that enquiry should be made into offence referred to in Sec.195(1)(b) , reiterates Madras HC Justice G.Jayachandran [27-06-2022]

Read Order: B.GOKILA V. MURUGESAN.R AND ORS

Mansimran Kaur

Chennai, June 29, 2022: In a case pertaining to the offence of perjury which is punishable under Section 193 of IPC, the Madras High Court has clarified that for giving false evidence intentionally in a judicial proceedings is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term, which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.

The Bench of Justice G.Jayachandran allowed the instant appeal which was preferred under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. against the order passed by the Principal Judge dated December 8, 2014 wherein, the information by way of sworn statement given by one R.Murugesan alleging perjury was treated as a complaint.  The Bench was of the view that there was fault in the procedure adopted by the Referral Court, however it failed to take into account the inordinate delay in filing of the petition.

The subject matter of the information treated as complaint was regarding the fact that in the divorce petition filed for divorce by Murugesan on the ground of cruelty, Gokila- the appellant filed an interim application for maintenance for the well being of her minor daughter. The Family Court ordered the interim maintenance.However, subsequently, Gokial filed the divroce petition and the same was allowed. 

Meanwhile, Murgesan lodged a complaint under Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C r/w Section 193 of IPC alleging that Gokila had committed perjury during the proceeding by suppressing the fact that she was working as Primary Teacher in Shree Saraswathi Vidhyaah Mandheer School from June 2, 2001 to August 30, 2006.  Suppressing this fact, she filed an affidavit in her interim application that she was not working and she did not owned immovable property and had no source of income. Relying upon this false affidavit, the Court passed an order thereby Gokila has committed serious wrong to the Court for an offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC. This complaint was taken on file by the Principal Family Court and the order was passed. Consequently, the material records were forwarded to Metropolitan Magistrate. This Criminal Appeal was filed against the order of the Principal Judge, Family Court wherein, the information by way of sworn statement given by one R.Murugesan alleging perjury, was treated as a complaint and forwarded the material records to the Metropolitan Magistrate.

The Court was of the view that the facts found on record clearly indicated that the appellant herein had deliberately suppressed her employment in order to sustain her petition seeking maintenance, travel expenses and litigation expenses in a pending divorce petition.  However, simultaneously this Court also observed that Murugesan/first respondent in this case did not assign any reason for his belated complaint, even though he was pursuing the case against the appellant herein before several Forums.

Observing that the Referral Court had superficially approached the case without due judicial deliberation, the Bench affirmed, “To exercise the power under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., as the interpretation of the provision made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court indicates, the Court before entertaining the complaint to proceed further should satisfy itself, whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Mere extract of the expression in the order is not expected under law.” 

On the facts of the case, this Court noted that the Referral Court converted the petition as complaint holding that it was expedient in the ends of justice and without providing any opportunity to the appellant it converted the petition as complaint and forwarded the same to Judicial Magistrate. However, the Referral Court had failed to take note of the fact that the petition filed after inordinate delay and laches without any satisfactory explanation for the delay and it ought to have been subjected to the litmus test, whether the petition was filed on personal vendetta or to ensure the interest of justice not been done. Thus, in light of the aforesaid findings, this Court observed that it was not expedient to entertain the complaint under Section 304 (1) of Cr.P.C, which was impugned by the instant appeal.  Accordingly, the criminal appeal was allowed.