The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLREV No.269 of 2024 (In the matter of application under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Smt. Manasa Behera … Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & others … Opposite Parties For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. P.C.Patnaik, Advocate For Opposite Party : Mr.A.K.Apat, Addl. PP CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY F DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:02.04.2025(ORAL) G. Satapathy, J. 1. This revision is directed against the concurring finding of the learned Civil Judge(Jr.Divn.), Purushottampur and learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Chatrapur, Ganjam refusing to act in terms of Sec. 340 of the CrPC. 2. In the course of hearing, Mr.Padma Charan Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that OP No.3 has deposed false evidence in his examination- in-chief and cross-examination and thereby he is liable CRLREV No. 269 of 2024 Page 1 of 6 U/S. 340 of the CrPC, but the learned trial Court/Appellate Court without appreciating the matter in proper perspective has passed the impugned orders which are liable to be quashed/set aside. 3. After having considered the submissions as advanced for the petitioner upon perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner wants to invoke the power U/S. 340 of the CrPC against the OP No.3 for giving false evidence before the trial Court, but fact remains that there is equivalent penal provision as enumerated in Sec. 193 of IPC for giving false evidence and thereby, the petitioner could have filed a complaint before the Court concerned, but instead of doing so, the petitioner has approached the concerned Courts which have passed the impugned orders. Right now this Court being the Revisional Court cannot appreciate the facts as agitated before the Court concerned and the point on which the petitioner argues is with regard to giving false oral evidence by OP No.3. Further, Sec. 340 of the CrPC if carefully gone through refers to expediency, which the Court concerned has to consider to pass an order CRLREV No. 269 of 2024 Page 2 of 6 directing to initiate a proceeding U/S. 340 of CrPC, but not only the learned trial Court, but also the Appellate Court has refused to extend the benefit of same to the Petitioner in this case. 4. Be that as it may, this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision in State of Punjab Vrs. Jasbir Singh; 2022 SCC Online SC 1240 wherein the Apex Court has been called upon to answer a reference of the following two questions:- “(i) whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry ?” In answering the first question in above reference in negative, the Apex Court has taken note of the paragraph-23 of the Constitutional Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah Vrs. Meenakshi Marwah; (2005) 4 SCC 370, with approval. For clarity, the paragraph-23 of the aforesaid judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah(supra) is extracted hereunder;- CRLREV No. 269 of 2024 Page 3 of 6 “ In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1) (b), as the Section is conditioned by the words “Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice.” This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195 (i) (b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property of status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint.” 5. On a cumulative analysis of the position of law as referred to above and settled by the Apex Court in Jasbir Singh and Iqbal Singh Marwah(supra), it appears that Sec. 340 of CrPC does not mandate a preliminary enquiry, so also such a course may not be CRLREV No. 269 of 2024 Page 4 of 6 required to be adopted in every cases. However, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Sec. 195(1)(b) of CrPC. However, it is not in all and every case, the Court has to exercise the jurisdiction of Sec.340 of CrPC, unless there is an expediency in the interest of justice in the opinion of the Court. In this case, this Court does not feel such expediency in the matter because the dispute between the parties is relating to an election in which there is allegation and counter allegation, but the petition stated to be filed U/S.340 of CrPC by the appellant-petitioner does not persuade this Court to direct to conduct an preliminary enquiry or to direct for institution of complaint against the respondent in this case. In the aforesaid facts and circumstance and taking into consideration the law laid down by Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah(supra), this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of record to exercise revisional jurisdiction in this case. CRLREV No. 269 of 2024 Page 5 of 6 6.
Decision
In the result, the revision stands dismissed. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 2nd day of April, 2025/kishore Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 03-Apr-2025 18:49:36 CRLREV No. 269 of 2024 Page 6 of 6