Section 340 Crpc deals with the procedure adopted by the court to punish those person who leads false evidence on material facts.
In matrimonial cases generally it has been observed that wife gives false evidence to prosecute the husband and in cases such as 498a it is observed that wife generally use every means to harass the victims of 498a i.e the husband side.
So here are some of the successful cases which were initiated by husband side to prosecute their wives for giving false evidence in the court.
In her testimony, recorded on 12.02.04, Veena testified that she was not working anywhere after her marriage. She was not working till that day anywhere from the date, when she was kicked out of her matrimonial home. She entered the witness box on 07.04.04 for her cross examination, wherein she testified that since after coming to her parental home, she was not doing any job. She was having one bank account in Cooperative Bank. She denied the suggestion that she worked with 4 Tirath Ram Charitable Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi. She further denied the suggestion that she was holding bank account No. 4277991 in Punjab National Bank. She was further crossexamined on 06.05.04, wherein she denied that she was earning sufficiently to maintain herself. When respondent was given an opportunity to rebut facts, he could bring it over the record that she worked with Tirath Ram Hospital from 01.06.01 till 10.06.02. It was further proved that she was maintaining a bank account at Punjab National Bank, wherein her salary from the said hospital was being encashed. When these facts came over record, respondent moved an application under section 340 of the Code before the Trial Court to get her prosecuted. Trial Court had not conducted an inquiry, as contemplated by section 340 of the Code, but recorded findings against the appellant, vide order dated 09.09.05 detailing therein that she committed an offence punishable under section 193 of the Penal Code.
At the conclusion of inquiry, the Court has to give finding after application of its mind that it is expedient in the interest of justice to file a complaint under section 195 of the Code and only thereafter complaint would be legal. Opinion or satisfaction contemplated under section 340 of the Code is objective and not subjective one and should be reflected in findings recorded or order passed by the Court. Section 340 of the Code specifically enjoins that Court “shall record findings to that effect”, which means that it is expedient in the interest of justice that inquiry should be made. Provision is not merely peremptory, but mandatory and it is a condition precedent for preferring a complaint before the Magistrate. The phrase that “it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made” is the keynote of the section to initiate an action. Law to this effect was laid in Arul Raj (1996 Cr.L.J. 2712) and Nimmayankula Audi Narayannya (AIR 1970 AP 119).
Advocate Nitish Banka