TABASSUM KHATOON @ BEJNI KHATOON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short "Cr. P.C.?) has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to make an inquiry and take action against the private opposite parties for the act of perjury committed by them in course of the proceeding of Cr. Misc. No.2647 of 2016 disposed of on 04.03.2016 by this Court.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in Cr. Misc. No.8488 of 2017 filed by Mr. Vivek Jha under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail a copy of incomplete Station Diary Entry dated 26.09.2014 was annexed in order to mislead this Court. He submitted that the petitioner could come to know about the aforesaid perjury after he obtained a copy of the petition filed in the Court. His contention is that the alleged act of perjury committed by the private opposite parties in course of proceeding of Cr. Misc. No.2647 of 2016 warrants an inquiry to be made as the same was committed in relation to a proceeding in the Court and in respect of a document given by him in support of his defence. He submitted that as per Section 195(1) (b) (ii) of the Cr. P.C. no Court would take cognizance of the offence relating to perjury of a document when such offence is committed in respect of a document produced or given in a proceeding in any Court except on a complaint in writing of that Court and, thus, an inquiry is required to be made under the order of this Court to prosecute the private opposite parties.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that Section 195(1) (b) (ii) of the Cr. P.C. creates a bar against an order taking cognizance of an offence only in certain specified situation. Since the alleged offence is not committed in respect of a document which was in custody of the Court, there would be no legal bar for the petitioner to file a complaint. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370.