Mere Fact That Person Has Made Contradictory Statement In Judicial Proceeding Is Not Sufficient To Justify Prosecution U/s. 199 & 200 IPC: Calcutta HC
|While stating that the materials brought on record were insufficient and inadequate to justify the conclusion that it was expedient, in the interest of justice, to file a complaint, the Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition preferred by the Parsi Zoroastrian Association, Calcutta which had sought initiation of proceeding under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the plaintiffs for the commission of an offence under Section 193 and 209 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860.
Observing that the Court had to be satisfied as to the prima facie case for a complaint for inquiry into an offence under the provision of Cr.P.C, the Single Judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao stated that “The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence to use the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings.”
The Bench further observed that the Court had to form an opinion that it was expedient, in the interests of justice, to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) Cr.P.C, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution.
Advocate Phiroze Edulji appeared for the Applicant, whereas Advocate R. K. Khanna appeared for the Defendant.
In this case, it was alleged that after the demise of the first defendant, the Parsi Zoroastrian community held an online memorial service for him where both the first plaintiff and her husband spoke on the said occasion. Another online memorial service was held and the said event was streamed live on youtube wherein it was proved that the plaintiffs were present at the said memorial service through online mode. Therefore, it was submitted that the averments made by the plaintiffs that only after the receipt of the copy of pleadings, the plaintiffs enquired about the death of the first defendant was misleading, and that the plaintiffs had made false statements on affidavit before this Court thus committing an offence under the provisions of IPC.
The Bench navigated through the provision of Section 340 of CrPC which provided for procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 CrPC.
Referring to the Supreme Court case of K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India which had held that provisions of Section 340 of CrPC were alluded to only to show that necessary care and caution was to be taken before initiating a criminal proceeding for perjury against the deponent of contradictory statements in a judicial proceeding, the Bench reiterated that it had been consistently held by the Court that prosecution for perjury be sanctioned by the Courts only in those cases where perjury appeared to be deliberate and that prosecution ought to be ordered where it would be expedient, in the interest of justice, to punish the delinquent and not merely because there was some inaccuracy in the statement.
The High Court elaborated that it is open to the Court to hold a preliminary inquiry though it is not mandatory, and in case, the Court is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion, that it appears to the Court that an offence as referred to under Section 340 of Cr. P.C has been committed, the Court may dispense with the preliminary inquiry.
Even after forming an opinion as to the offence which appears to have been committed also, a complaint doesn't need to be filed as a matter of course, added the Court.
Cause Title: Prochy N. Mehta and Anr. v. Noshir Tankariwala and Ors.
Click here to read/download the Judgment