JAYENDRA SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.04.2019 of Family Court, passed in M.J.C. No.274 of 2016, issuance of writ of mandamus, for direction to the Family Court, Bilaspur to initiate proceeding under Section 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C and also for issuance of mandamus directing the Family Court, Bilaspur to allow the documents and electronic evidence, which may be produced by the petitioner.

(2.) Respondent No.3 and 4 Mamta Sahu and Saumya Sahu Sahu have filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur, which has been registered as M.J.C. No.329 of 2015. At the stage of evidence of the parties, these respondents have filed affidavits before the Court below under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C. to be read as their examination-in- chief. The petitioner has assailed the contents of the affidavit on the ground that the witnesses have made false statement before the Court and the petitioner has evidence in his possession to disprove the statement given by the witnesses. On that basis an application was filed referring to Section 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C. praying that order be passed for registration of offence against the private respondents. The Court below has considered on the Page No.3 application and passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2019 by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

(3.) It is submitted by the petitioner, who is appearing in person before this Court, that affidavit filed by the respondent No.3- Mamta Sahu, Ramavtar Sahu and their statement in cross- examination recorded before the Family Court very clearly establishes the offence of perjury has been committed in this case. The petitioner in person has demonstrated by referring to the evidence, which has been recorded before the Court below and also referring to the other evidence, which he intends to produce before the Court below that the offence of perjury has been committed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has in his possession recording of telephone calls made which may be produced before the Court below if required. The details of these reference need not to be mentioned in this order as that is still subject for consideration by the trial Court itself. On this basis, prayer has been made that relief be granted as prayed for.