Troubled Hubby (support ) 01 September 2009

Sec 340 Crpc Proceedings

Respected Lawayers

Regarding CRPC 340 i came to know that it can be filed after the passing of judgment also

Sir in my ongoing case under sec 24 HMA inteirm maintenace my wife under oath has lied before the court that she is not working . i produced her provident fund details before the honourable court but the judge is relcutant to see those documents since the argument is concluded for IA and the main petation is to be heard and judge is about to pass interim maintenace orders how i can stop this

In CRPC 340 i came to know that i can file after the IA orders also below is the extact i read from a legal source

There are two ways you can file a partition

1. During the proceeding your advocate had to convince the judge that the document filed by the respondent is false. The judge has no power to punish for offences committed. If satisfied the judge will forward the same to a magistrate with in whose jurisdiction the court lies for further proceedings. Then the case becomes as though a complaint is made before the magistrate by police and the case will be handled by state prosecutor.

2. Irrespective of the outcome of the case whether in your favor or not after the proceeding are over your advocate can file an application in the same court that a false document is filed before the same court during the proceedings before it. The judge will conduct an enquiry and forward your application with his finding to a magistrate, if he is satisfied the document is false.

The same had applied in the below case

I am giving below a SC Judgement as given by News paper The Hindu dated 6/12/2008.

Proceedings against Pawar, BCCI officials stayed

Legal Correspondent

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed all criminal proceedings initiated by the Calcutta High Court against the former president of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) and Union Agriculture Minister, Sharad Pawar, and five other BCCI officials relating to filing of an affidavit in the Jagmohan Dalmiya expulsion case. A Bench of Chief Justice K. G. Balakrishnan and Justice P. Sathasivam stayed the proceedings on special leave petitions filed by Mr. Pawar and five others against the High Court order dated November 12, directing an enquiry into the alleged filing of false affidavit and registration of a complaint against the six persons.

Besides Mr. Pawar, others who filed the SLPs are the BCCI, Niranjan Rasik Lal Shah, Chirayu Amin, Sashank Manohar and N. Srinivasan. The Bench issued notice to Mr. Dalmia seeking his response in four weeks.

Solicitor General G.E. Vahanvati, appearing for Mr. Pawar, submitted that the High Court had directed an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. relying on an affidavit of one Ratnakar Shetty filed on behalf of the BCCI in a civil suit filed by Mr. Dalmia.

He said a preliminary enquiry was ordered without hearing any of the persons against whom the complaint was to be filed and without complying with the principles of natural justice.

Senior counsel Fali Nariman, Mukul Rohatgi, Abhishek Singhvi and Rohinton Nariman joined Mr. Vahanvati in pointing out how the single judge’s order was erroneous and patently wrong.

Senior counsel K.K. Venugopal, appearing for Mr. Dalmia, justified the order, saying that since it was only a preliminary enquiry, there was no need for hearing the persons concerned before a complaint was made. He cited an earlier three-judge judgment of the apex court relied on by the Calcutta High Court for passing an ex-parte order.

The CJI told counsel “Under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the judge [concerned] must give an opportunity to the persons before conducting an enquiry, record a finding and then direct registration of a complaint.” Referring to the judgment cited by counsel, the CJI said that was a case in which there was a judicial finding after an enquiry, and hence there was no need for giving further opportunity but “here it is not.”

Please guide me and suggest what can be done in the interst of Justice

Reply Follow

28 Replies

jayaveladvocate (Lawyer) 02 September 2009

Frankly speaking non use of Section 340 of the Criminal Code was single largest factor for fileing of cases in Judiciary. An action under Section 340 could potentially include the advocate and corrupt judges that is why judiciary is always refusing to invoke. Mr. Chandran CJM of Thiruvellur District faces in Tamil nadu still evading dragnet for actions like this under colour adminstriative enquiry. It is the fate of common man in India

Thyagarajan (Property management) 02 September 2009

Dear Troun\bled Hubby,

Yoy can not do anything in the interest of justice. It is the Judge who had to. Since you say judge is reluctant to take up the issue, wait till the proceeding are over. It is immeterial what is the outcome of the case , in your favor or nor. Then you file an application before the same court that the false document may be sent to a magistrate for further proceedings. Then the judge had to conduct an enquiry whether the documents given by your wife is false or not. If he fails again to forward you can approach the court to which the former court is sub-ordinate under sec341 crpc. on appeal.Engage a good advocate.

I am the source of the meterial you quoated. Also Mr. Karan Bir Sing Advocate has given his views how sec 340crpc is effective in domestic problems brought before the court. So do not worry. A carefull follow up of the case under sec340crpc will help you in the case.

so read what Karan says

340 CRPC an effective tool to stop Legal Terrorism: By Mr.Karan Bir Singh, Advocate

Tuesday, 02 September 2008

340 CRPC an effective tool to stop Legal Terrorism: By Mr.Karan Bir Singh, Advocate

DEDICATED TO THE VICTIMS OF 498A/406 IPC AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005

It is quite remarkable that the women laws has not been used for the purpose they are created but in fact are misused to its fullest extent by the women by filing false and frivolous dowry related cases against their husband and his family and in most of the cases there is no iota of evidence but mere false allegations by the women folk to harass and humiliate the husband and his family to settle their own ego and oblique motives.

In this scenario the husband is always at the receiving end and look out for defenses and ways to better protect himself from the clutches of the women laws wherein the women assumes a superior and dominating position in spite of the fact that she is stating false facts before Courts and various foras. In all this one provision in Criminal Procedure Code can act as an effective tool to counter such false allegations and creating a fear in the mind of the women who alleges and state false facts before the Court to gain advantage and to harass and humiliate the husband.

Section 340 Cr PC has been devised as a way to prohibit and create a fear in the mind of those who file false documents or give false evidence in the Court of Law.

The provision certainly acts as a deterrent to those who states false facts before the Court of Law.

Troubled Hubby (support ) 02 September 2009

thanks thyagarajan and jaya vel

Troubled Hubby (support ) 02 September 2009

HC (Kar) Perjury - Two irreconcilable statements proves perj

Read in this Judgment:

6. I have already referred to Illustration (b) of S. 236 Cr.P.C. which
states that a person may be charged in the alternative and convicted of
intentionally giving false evidence, although it cannot be proved which
of the contradictory statements was false. Sri Vijaya Shankar has also
relied on Umrao Lal v. State, , which is an authority
for the proposition that in a prosecution under S. 193 IPC. if the
prosecution succeeds in proving that the accused in the witness box
deliberately made two statements which are so contradictory and
irreconcilable with each other, that both cannot possibly be true, he
can be convicted of perjury even without its being proved which one of
them was not true.

and

"giving false evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding". What is a 'judicial
proceeding' is defined in S. 4(m) Cr.P.C. it reads thus:

"'Judicial proceeding' includes any proceeding in the course of
which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath."

Gangawwa vs State Of Mysore on 17/2/1967

ORDER

1. The petitioner has been convicted of an offence under section 193
I.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Bijapur, and sentenced to
suffer one year's R. I. In the appeal filed by the petitioner against
the said conviction and sentence to the Sessions Judge of Bijapur, the
conviction was confirmed, but the sentence was reduced to three months'
R. I. The petitioner has come up in revision to this Court questioning
the correctness and legality of the said order of the Sessions Judge
confirming her conviction.

2. In P. R. Case No. 5/1963, in a proceeding under section 512 Cr.P.C.
the petitioner examined as a witness by the Judicial Magistrate, I
Class, Bagewadi, and made a certain statement on oath. When the
petitioner was examined in the committal proceedings in P. R. Case No.
2/65, she made another statement wholly irreconcilable and
contradictory to the previous statement. After issuing show cause
notice, the learned Magistrate directed that a complaint be filed
against the petitioner under S. 193 IPC. After the trail, the Judicial
Magistrate, I Class, Bijapur, convicted her of an offence under S. 193,
IPC.

3. Sri Malimath learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, has
contended that the charge framed against the petitioner is defective.
The charge simply says that either of the statements made by her in the
two different proceedings is false and it does not say which particular
statement made by her is false. He also argues that the charge framed
is not consistent with the complaint or the committal order in the
case. I see no force in the said contentions.

4. It is not necessary for the charge to state specifically which of
the statements made by the petitioner is false. As pointed out by Sri
Vijaya Shankar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, it is
open to the Court under section 236 Cr.P.C. to frame alternative
charges against a person. Illustration (b) to section 236 Cr.P.C.
states that a person may be charged in the alternative and convicted of
intentionally giving false evidence, although it cannot be proved which
of those contradictory statements is false. The charge framed by the
Court must depend on the evidence in the case and does not depend on
either the complaint or the order passed in the committal proceedings.

Further, there is no inconsistency between the complaint filed and the
charge framed in this case. the complaint sets out the contradictory
statements made by the petitioner and states that the answers given by
her go to show that she has perjured. In any case, even assuming there
are defects in the charge, S. 225 Cr.P.C. states, that no error in
stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in
the charge and no omission to state the offence or those particulars
shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the
accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has
occasioned a failure of justice.

5. Sri Malimath has next contended that the prosecution has failed to
establish which of the statements made by the petitioner is false and
therefore the petitioner cannot be convicted under S. 193 IPC. He has
strongly relied on Emperor v. Ningappa Ramappa Kurbar, 43 Bom LR 864 :
(AIR 1941 Bom 408) in support of his said contention. The facts of that
case were entirely different from the facts of the present case. their
Lordships were considering there the question whether it was expedient
to prosecute a person under S. 476, Cr.P.C. and not under S. 479A,
Cr.P.C. They were considering the statement made by the accused under
S. 164 Cr.P.C. in the committal Court.

6. I have already referred to Illustration (b) of S. 236 Cr.P.C. which
states that a person may be charged in the alternative and convicted of
intentionally giving false evidence, although it cannot be proved which
of the contradictory statements was false. Sri Vijaya Shankar has also
relied on Umrao Lal v. State, , which is an authority
for the proposition that in a prosecution under S. 193 IPC. if the
prosecution succeeds in proving that the accused in the witness box
deliberately made two statements which are so contradictory and
irreconcilable with each other, that both cannot possibly be true, he
can be convicted of perjury even without its being proved which one of
them was not true.

7. Sri Malimath also contends that the examination of the petitioner by
the learned Magistrate under S. 342 Cr.P.C., is not according to law
and it has gravely prejudiced the petitioner. He has relied on Ajmer
Singh v. State of Punjab, and Ramashankar Singh v.
State of W. B., . He argues that the questions put by
the Court to the petitioner were so long, involved and confusing that
it was not possible for the petitioner to understand the same and give
proper answers. If the petitioner had been properly questioned, she
would have come out with an explanation. There is no doubt, the
question put by the Magistrate are long and complicated. But the point
for consideration is whether the petitioner has been prejudiced in her
defence and whether it has caused failure of justice.

8. In Moseb Kaka v. State of W. B., , their Lordships,
in paragraph 8, page 540, have observed as follows:

"There can be no doubt that this is very inadequate compliance with
the salutary provisions of S. 342, Cr.P.C. It is regrettable that
there has occurred in this case such a serious lacuna in procedure
notwithstanding repeated insistence of this Court, in various
decisions commencing Tara Singh v. State, on a due
and fair compliance with the terms of S. 342 Cr.P.C. But it is also
well recognised that a judgment is not to be set aside merely by
reason of inadequate compliance with Section 342 Cr.P.C. It is
settled that clear prejudice must be shown. This Court has clarified
the position in relation to cases where accused is represented by
Counsel at the trial and in appeal. It is up to the accused or his
Counsel in such cases to satisfy the Court that such inadequate
examination has resulted in miscarriage of justice."

The charge which the petitioner was upon to meet was a simple one. The
case was that she made two totally contradictory statements on oath in
P. R. Case No. 5/63 and P. R. Case No. 2 of 1965. The petitioner denied
that she made the statement alleged in P. R. Case No 5/63. Hence, I am
of opinion that it cannot be said that the petitioner has been
prejudiced and it has resulted in miscarriage of justice.

9. Sri Malimath has further contended that the statement under S. 512
Cr.P.C. made by the petitioner cannot be made use of when the
petitioner is alive and can give evidence. Further, he contends S. 512
Cr.P.C. is only a mode of recording evidence. It is neither an enquiry
nor a trial. The petitioner was not a witness when her statement was
recorded under S. 512 Cr.P.C. He also argues that a complaint could not
be made under S. 479A Cr. P.C. by the Committal Court. It could be made
only by the Sessions Court to whom the accused is committed. There is
no final order disposing of the case when the accused is committed to
the Court of Session for trial. Committal proceedings are not
independent proceedings, but only a stage of the judicial proceedings
before the Sessions Judge who and it is only the Sessions Judge who has
jurisdiction to file a complaint under S.479-A Cr.P.C. If the Committal
Court and the Sessions Court both have jurisdiction to pass an order
under S. 479A, this would result in conflicting orders.

9A. It may be pointed out that the contentions mentioned above have not
been urged either in the trial Court or in the appeal before the
Sessions Court. This Court has not got the benefit of the views of the
Courts below on these questions. Since Sri Malimath argues that they
are questions of law and could be raised revision, I will deal with
these points shortly.

10. With regard to the contention that the statement under S. 512
Cr.P.C. cannot be made use of when the petitioner is alive and could
give evidence, it may be pointed out that this has reference only to
the absconding accused in the said proceedings. There is no prohibition
for making use of a statement given by the petitioner under section 512
Cr.P.C. against herself in proceedings instituted under section 193
IPC. With regard to the contention that S. 512 proceedings are neither
inquiry, nor trial, it may be pointed out that S. 479A Cr.P.C. does not
refer to any inquiry or trial. All that it states is "giving false
evidence in any stage of the judicial proceeding". What is a 'judicial
proceeding' is defined in S. 4(m) Cr.P.C. it reads thus:

"'Judicial proceeding' includes any proceeding in the course of
which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath."

Explanation 2 to S. 193 IPC. states that even an investigation directed
by law, preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a
stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take
place before a Court of Justice. Explanation 3 to the same section also
states that an investigation directed by a Court of Justice according
to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a
stage of a judicial proceeding though that investigation may not take
place before a Court of Justice. It is therefore clear that both under
the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Indian Penal Code, a proceeding
under section 512 Cr.P.C. comes within the definition of 'judicial
proceeding.'

11. Sri Malimath has also contended that when a person is examined
under S. 512 Cr.P.C. he is not deposing as a witness. He has relied on
in re: Ramalingam, AIR 1965 Mad 100 in support of his contention. What
was decided in that case was that section 479A, Cr.P.C. applied only to
person appearing before Court as witnesses and does not apply to a case
where a person does not appear as a witness before Court but only files
an affidavit without entering the box. Here, it cannot disputed that
the petitioner had appeared before Court in both the proceedings as a
witness.

12. Sri Malimath has argued that committal proceedings are only a stage
of the judicial proceedings before the Sessions Court and that only the
Sessions Judge has got the power to take proceedings under S. 479A,
Cr.P.C. and not the Committal Court. He has strongly relied on the
observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Shabir
Hussain Bholu v. State of Maharashtra, in support of
his contention. The question which their Lordships were considering in
the said case was, in a case where proceedings under S. 479A Cr.P.C.
should have been taken, whether it was open to the Court to proceed
under S. 476 Cr.P.C. Their Lordships held that the provisions of S. 476
are totally excluded where the offence is of the kind specified in S.
479A. In that particular case, the accused had made conflicting
statements before the Committal Court and the Sessions Court.

Their Lordships held that the committal proceedings were not
independent proceedings and it was only the Sessions Court which decide
whether proceedings under S. 479A could be taken against the accused.
It may be pointed out in this case, the petitioner was never examined
in the Sessions Court. Hence the question of Sessions Court taking
proceedings S. 479A did not arise. The question of conflicting orders
by the Sessions Court and the Committal Court also does not arise in
the case.

13. There is equally no force in the contention of Sri Malimath that in
the committal proceedings there is no final order disposing of such
proceedings. So far as the Committal Court is concerned once it commits
an accused to the Sessions Court, there is final disposal of the
proceedings before it. In Dastagiramma v. State, it
has been held that committal proceedings are final so far as they
result in discharge or in committal. Such an order would be final order
disposing of such proceedings within the meaning of S. 478A Cr. P.C.

14. Finally, Sri Malimath has contended that the statement made by the
petitioner was not intentional and that she is an illiterate woman. It
is not possible to accept this contention. The learned Magistrate, who
recorded the evidence in both the proceedings has been examined as a
witness. He has stated that the petitioner after being administered
oath, made the above mentioned contradictory statements. The evidence
given by her was read over and explained to her and she admitted the
statements to be correct. There is, therefore, no force in any of the
contentions urged by Sri Malimath on behalf of the petitioner.

15. In the result, there is no merit in this revision petition and the
same is dismissed.

16. Petition dismissed.

Raghav Sood (Lawyer) 06 January 2010

340 initiation only after verdict of the court

Thyagarajan (Property management) 07 January 2010

Dear Raghav Sood,

Apex court had ruled 340 crpc can be applied during proceedings in court.

Munirathnam (Scientist) 27 January 2010

Thyagarajan is correct, live example is BCCI case ...

Can anyone comment on the below allegations whether these attract perjury or not ...

The petitioner humbly submits that respondent is approaching the Honorable Court with false information and intentionally knowingly doing such false allegations to cause conviction of petitioner in the criminal case and also for the wrongful gains from honorable court. Due to false allegations in the criminal cases, petitioner lost the opportunities to serve our country. The false evidence/statements is causing serious damage to the normal life, reputation of the petitioner, also causing mental cruelty to the petitioner, also consuming and wasting petitioner’s time, life and energy. Also respondent is causing wastage of Honorable court’s time. Details of the offence as follows:

I. Petitioner humbly submit that respondent gave false evidence/statement in the honorable court by saying that the petitioner did harass the respondent by manhandling the respondent such way that respondent received physical injuries and got treated in hospital, with the help of respondent’s brother and her parents, at Bangalore and respondent left the matrimonial house at Bangalore and also gave false evidence that petitioner was not physically available to her parents and to her brother and also not available even on phone. Petitioner humbly submits that false evidence given by the respondent could cause conviction of petitioner in criminal case (FIR No.xx/2008) hence petitioner request the honorable court to take appropriate measures in the interest of justice.

II. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent’s above statements are false and contradicts with her own statement, her blood relatives statements and witnesses CrPC-161 statements given to the police during the FIR No.xx/2008, Kukatpally PS, crime final investigation report (charge sheet). Petitioner humbly submits that respondent’s false statements made petitioner’s brother-in-law as respondent in a criminal case U/s 498A, who never lived with respondent’s family at Bangalore.

III. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false evidence in the honorable court by saying that petitioner made the respondent house arrest and starved for food for two days at Bangalore. In contra, even on the last day and its previous day of the respondent stay at Bangalore, respondent did shopping with neighbors and friends. Despite petitioner’s request respondent left the matrimonial house and after 15 days made false complaint to police.

IV. Petitioner further submits that, respondent gave false evidence by saying that petitioner treated the respondent cruelty by not giving food for days together to get money by selling respondent property from the respondent. Petitioner humbly submits that this allegation is also part of the complaint (FIR No.xx/2008) made by respondent to the Kukatpally PS. As per the police final investigation report on FIR No.xx/2008, the said allegation is false and this false allegation is removed from the investigation report. Also none of the respondent’s relatives and witnesses statements, given to Kukatpally police, supported the respondent’s false statement. Petitioner submits that, respondent was engaged with neighbors and friends with many parties at Bangalore (marriage, birthday and picnic), was facilitated with good facilities at matrimonial home and never neglected at Bangalore.

V. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false evidence in the honorable court by saying that respondent’s parents gave Rs.40, 00,000/- worth agriculture land property items, large amounts of gold (present approximate price Rs.10, 00,000/-) and cash (Rs.3,00,000/-)to the petitioner which contradicts with her own written complaint in which it is said that those property items were given to respondent by her parents. Petitioner submits that the said property items were never existed on petitioner’s name with petitioner’s knowledge. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent’s false evidence could cause the petitioner U/s 3 of DP Act, hence petitioner request honorable court for appropriate action in the interest of justice.

VI. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false evidence saying respondent lived with petitioner at Bangalore from the day one of the marriage, i.e. from 11.11.2007. After marriage also respondent continued working at St.Theresa hospital, Yerragadda, Hyderabad till April-20th 2008, while petitioner is continued job at Bangalore, Karnataka. Respondent making such false statements to suit her false criminal story on the petitioner and on petitioner’s relatives to get convicted in criminal case registered by the respondent and also to get wrongful gain from Honorable court.

VII. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent admitted in her complaint to Kukatpally police that petitioner’s parents not lived with respondent’s family at Bangalore by stating that petitioner’s parents made phone calls to petitioner to giving advices to cause harassment to the respondent, which is false statement. Whereas in respondent’s CrPC-125 petition, respondent gave false evidence to the honorable court by saying respondent’s parents ill-treated the petitioner at Bangalore since day one of the marriage. Petitioner humbly submits that petitioner relatives did not live with respondent family to cause harassment at Bangalore.

VIII. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false evidence to the honorable court by saying that respondent was not provided phone facility during her stay at Bangalore with petitioner though respondent used the cell connection xxxxxxxxxxxxx and other phones provided by petitioner and respondent called her relatives and friends on that connection.

IX. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false evidence to the honorable court by saying that the petitioner harassed the respondent by not providing provide food and money to the petitioner during her stay at Bangalore, though respondent did shopping with petitioner, with neighbors and with friends at Bangalore to purchase required items for family life during her stay with petitioner at Bangalore. Respondent invited friends to the parties at home and had parties with them at Bangalore. Respondent attended marriage parties, birthday parties and picnics during her stay with petitioner.

X. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false evidence to the honorable court by saying that petitioner left the respondent alone at home, with out any intimation used to come to home after 3 days, 4 days and at times after one week also and during this period petitioner never gave any money even for food.

XI. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false information to the police by saying respondent brother purchased house hold items at Bangalore for the respondent family and petitioner harassed the respondent saying the house hold items are less. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent never caused injuries by the petitioner.

XII. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false information to the police by saying petitioner forced respondent to consume pregnancy abortion tablets to abort respondent pregnancy on 20th May-2008 and caused pregnancy abortion at Bangalore.

XIII. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false information to the police by saying petitioner publicized that respondent is carrying three months pregnancy while she was carrying 4 weeks pregnancy.

XIV. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false information to the police by saying petitioner thrown respondent out off house at Bangalore and took all her ornaments. Respondent left the matrimonial house despite petitioners requested respondent to stay back at matrimonial home at Bangalore.

XV. Petitioner humbly submits that respondent gave false evidence to the honorable court which could cause conviction in criminal case and destroys the normal living life of the petitioner. Respondent is approaching honorable court with false information and evidences causing the petitioner physical and mental harassment, loss of money, time, energy and causing defamation.

The above material is prepared by lawyer, please help me on whether I need to search for better lawyer to improvise this petition content.

Thank you.

Thyagarajan (Property management) 27 January 2010

Dear Munirathnam,

1. Are you the petitioner?

2.What was your case before the court.?

3.Do you have the respondent's counter ?

4. Are the 15 points mentioned contained in the counter

5. You better consult a lawyer who knows what is sec 340 cr.p.c. The meterial made by the lawyer is to be supported by evidance by the petitioner

Munirathnam (Scientist) 27 January 2010

Dear Thyagarajan Sir,

Answers for your question below:

1. Are you the petitioner?

Yes

2.What was your case before the court.?

My wife filed 498A and CrPC-125 with 100% contradicting, diverse and flase allegations

3.Do you have the respondent's counter ?

Yes (almost these are the counter points), some more additional points are there which provide informatiotn that wife has Rs.50,00,000/- worth property on her name, wife has capacity to maintain herself.

4. Are the 15 points mentioned contained in the counter

Yes

5. You better consult a lawyer who knows what is sec 340 cr.p.c. The meterial made by the lawyer is to be supported by evidance by the petitioner

Sure. Coudl you tell me whether, the points here are Ok for attracting the perjury (CrPC-340 read with 193 IPC)

Thnaks.

Thyagarajan (Property management) 27 January 2010

Dear Munirathnam,

As I see you can file a complaint unde sec 340 crpc read with 199 ipc which is filing false document is same as giving false evidants under offences provided in sec 195 crpc.

i feel you should engage a Lawyer as the case is complicated and you can not explaine law points in person to the judge.

sharmilla ram (general manager) 28 January 2010

mr scientist. u r living banglore better to attained the metting of save india family.in banglore they r very active defnetly they will help u n they will guide u right path.i appericate ur feelings.do it if possiable otherwise forget.but fight untill last breath.we all prey for u.

Parijat Kaul (Consultant) 28 January 2010

Does CrPC 340 not run independent of main case. How can any decision on the main suit impact CrPC 340 application. Can anyone give me verdicts from HC, SC saying CrPC 340 application must be diposed before the main suit.

Thyagarajan (Property management) 28 January 2010

Dear Parijat,

I am attaching a judgment of SC .

Hope that will amswer your question

Regards

Attached File : 11 11 1977 k 20karunakaran v t v eachara warrier.pdf downloaded: 402 times

Parijat Kaul (Consultant) 28 January 2010

Is this applicable in a civil suit too?

I this case the opposite party filed an affidavit in a counter claim hiding certain facts concerning business activities at office. During the X party still refused to accept that the activities. Later on presenting the evidence during re X party accepted to activities resulting in 340 application.

Hearing for counter claim and 340 is over however trial judge is refusing to pass orders untill the hearing for the main suit is over, against which the counter case was filed by opposite party.

Sec 340 Crpc Proceedings

28 Replies

Leave a reply

Recent Topics

Related Threads

Popular Discussion

Browse by Category