Chhinder Kaur @ Shinder Kaur v. State Of Punjab & ORS

 






 

 











 !

!"#$# %&
 '
!"!()!*+
 







  



  

  &
,-
.
/
0/
  
 

 


 


  

!

   """

0/
+

1*23& #



$%&

 
'

%() 

*
+
* *

 

,
)

$
' 
*
 *





 
 
 *
 
  *
 *
 

 


 *

 
)-)&.-

/ /.001$

)&.- 2

* 


 
 




' 
3 

3 

*
'
*


*
// .001$

)&.-


 
+



 *

 

*

*4

4
 
* 
 
5








 
3 

  '*4
* 



 

'




 
6

 

 
)-)&.-

  *'


            

 

    

 









        !



    "# $%

 $

   



 

  & "# $' (  

  



   )"# $*+

    ,   

 

  



         

  

  ,   - , 

      .

/   & 0  

1 & " "1& 



   

      

 "

      &         

    ,   /     & "#$*   

  /

   &     

  (  &     #

  

  

       

 2 6

 

' *

  *


**' 

   
 

   







3 4412. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the inquiry/contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to have some beneficial order from the court. There must be grounds of a nature higher than mere surmise or suspicion for initiating such proceedings. There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of perjury. More so, the court has also to determine as on facts, whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed.'' ...(emphasis supplied) %.

#

 
 


 !"# $ % 

$

 "$ % 

&'()  
*


 4418. 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

4 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 or 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. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remedyless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remedyless, has to be discarded.''

)

+ 7


 




'
 4
'


*
 



 *

 

 *
  
#




$%&




 
*4



8


 
 

9 



'
 

 


  4
 :


 




'


 **4
9 
 



'


 
 +
4
 *

  *  4
 


 
* 
4

  
;  *



  
 

 

  2

 

 


 
 

  

 



*4


 

*4
  
'





 

4

 *
 
 

 
 ,



 



5 : 





 

 



* 

4




0/



   '
!"!()!*+
  +
.
<
 +=
   >
=
, )
<
 *  >
=
,