musing on the state of society and fate of men. NO warranties
Friday, June 28, 2013
FW : PERJURY u/s 340 CrPC: A FIGHT BACK TOOL FOR INDIAN HUSBAND WHAT IS PERJURY ??
Forwarding an informative post from FB
Misuse of DV/498A - My Analysis
PERJURY u/s 340 CrPC: A FIGHT BACK TOOL FOR INDIAN HUSBAND WHAT IS PERJURY ??
First read the below sections from internet throughly in the order :- CrPC 340 >> CrPC 195 (b) (1) >> All the IPC sections specially those related to giving false statement.
Perjury = Making false statements under sworn affidavit + Fact which person should be knowing + Which may create a material loss to the opposite party
Three simple statement from wife, should clear all doubts about what falls under PERJURY.
Wife Statement 1 : My husband earns Rs. 20,000 >>>> This is not perjury. Because wife can always claim that husband lied about her salary.
Wife Statement 2 : I am 30 yrs old >>>> This is not perjury. Because such a lie doesnt creates a material loss to OP.
Wife Statement 3 : I have no source of income >>>>> This statement is applicable for perjury if wife is earning. Its a fact which wife should be knowing and can cause a material loss to husband's party.
WHEN TO FILE PERJURY ??
Commandment 1: Remember estranged wife is more intrested in your money rather than sending you behind bars. The initial JOSH from her side will fizz out once you get Anticipatory bail. Post AB, all they care about is $$$$. Therefore your sole objective is to make sure she cannot get hand on your hard-earned money/property.
NEVER GIVE MONEY FOR WIFE TO FIGHT CASE AGAINST YOU,
Commandment 2: DO NOT be shy to face the trial of 498A/406 in court. Objective should be to speed up criminal cases and delay maintenance cases (CrPC 125, HMA 24) and DV.
SPEED UP CRIMINAL CASES AND DELAY THE MAINTENANCE CASES
Commandment 3: Now there are many ways to implement the commandment 2, however, since we all know how greedy and to what extent these educated ladies can lie.....PERJURY is a great tool to remind court that these ladies are NOT Raja Harish Chandra. Use the judgments from SC and your respective HC effectively.
JUDGMENTS RELATED TO PERJURY :-
(2004)7 SCC 166 para 13 (Supra): "As a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies such litigant from obtaining any relief. This rule has been evolved out of the need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. But the suppressed fact must be a material one in the sense that had it not been suppressed it would have had an effect on the merits of the case…"
2005 SCC (Cri) 1322 para 21 (Supra): "This apart, the respondent did not also disclose the fact in the criminal revision filed before the High Court that he has also been convicted in another Criminal Case No. 202 of 1997 by the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House, New Delhi. Thus, the contesting respondent has come to the High Court with unclean hands and withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side. In our opinion, he would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. A person whose case is based on falsehood can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the Court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation"
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1356442/ Re: Suo Moto Proceedings Against ... vs Unknown on 12 May, 2001 Equivalent citations: AIR 2001 SC 2204, 2001 CriLJ 2611, 2001 (4) SCALE 199 18. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the record of proceedings in Suo Motu Contempt Petition (Criminal) No.5 of 2000 and Writ Petition No.77 of 2001, we are prima facie satisfied that the respondent herein, in his affidavit filed in support of the writ petition (for the purposes of being used in the judicial proceedings, i.e. writ petition), has wrongly made a statement that the age of Dr. Justice A.S. Anand has not been determined by the President of India in terms of-Article 217 of the constitution. We are satisfied that such a statement supported by an affricative of the respondent was known to him to be false which he believed to be false and/or atleast did not believe to be true. It is not disputed that an affidavit is evidence within the meaning of Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code and a person swearing to a false affidavit is guilty of perjury punishable under Section 193 IPC. The respondent herein, being legally bound by an oath to state the truth in his affidavit accompanying the petition is prima facie held to have made a false statement which constitutes an offence of giving false evidence as defined under Section 191 IPC, punishable under Section 193 IPC.
1. The stream of administration of justice has to remain unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are, therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly and to the satisfaction of all concerned. 2. Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice.
3. From the above, it follows that there are two conditions, on fulfillment of which a complaint can be filed against a person who has given a false affidavit or evidence in a proceeding before a court. The first condition being that a person has given a false affidavit in a proceeding before the court and, secondly, in the opinion of the court it is expedient in the interest of justice to make an inquiry against such a person in relation to the offence committed by him. It is no doubt true that the High Court has recorded a finding that the appellant has made a false statement on oath and has also used evidence known to be false and fabricated.