Kerala High Court
Raji Joshi Alias Reji Joshi vs State Of Kerala on 27 March, 2026
2026:KER:27895
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH 2026 / 6TH CHAITHRA,
1948
CRL.A NO. 1822 OF 2024
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.05.2015 IN M.C.
2/2014 IN OPMV NO.1701 OF 2007 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR
APPELLANT/RESPONDENT:
RAJI JOSHI ALIAS REJI JOSHI,
AGED 45 YEARS,
W/O. JOSHI, PUTHENKUDY HOUSE, OKKAL KARA,
OKKAL P.O , ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683550.
BY ADV SRI.R.SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT/:
STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031.
SENIOR PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI RENJIT GEORGE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
05.03.2026, THE COURT ON 27.03.2026 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 2
"C.R"
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
================================
Crl.Appeal No.1822 of 2024
================================
Dated this the 27th day of March, 2026
JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed under Section 380 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (`BNSS’ for short hereafter) challenging
the order dated 08.05.2015 in M.C.No.2/2014 arising out of O.P(MV)
No.1701/2007 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(`MACT’ for short hereafter), Perumbavoor. The respondent herein is the
State of Kerala.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/respondent as
well as the learned Public Prosecutor in detail. Perused the order
impugned as well as the relevant documents, including the decisions
placed by the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. On the facts of this case, the appellant herein is the 1 st
respondent in O.P(MV).No.1701/2007 on the files of the MACT,
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 3
Perumbavoor. M.C.No.2/2014 was suo motu registered by the Tribunal
when it found that Ext.B2 driving licence produced by the appellant herein
before the court on receipt of I.A.No.3505/2009 in OP(MV).No.1701/2007
was fake and forged and it was detected when the insurer filed a petition to
cause production of the driving licence particulars and its production. It
was found by the Tribunal that Ext.B2 driving licence bearing
No.7361/1998 was actually issued from Assistant Licensing Authority,
Meenambakkam in favour of one Raghavendra B Sirsi and not in favour of
the appellant. In the M.C.No.2/2014, while forwarding the order to the
JFCM, Perumbavoor, which led to registration of C.C.No.923/2015
pending before the JFCM-I, Perumbavoor, the Tribunal observed in
paragraphs 10 to 14 as under:
“10. So the only possible conclusion is that the
respondent/R1 had offered Ext:B2 which is a falsely created
document for using the same in evidence before this forum to avoid
the legal consequences against her, that are likely to follow on it
being revealed that she was not having a licence to drive the kinetic
honda at the time of the accident.
11. The contention of respondent/R1 that the entries
in the records maintained at the office of the licensing authority could
be a mistaken entry cannot be accepted, owing to the presumption u/s
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 4114(e) of the Evidence Act given to official records. It is also
contended by the respondent /R1 that she had been handed over the
licence by the driving school authorities who had given her lessons in
driving.
12. How far the said version of respondent/R1 is true
is a matter to be decided by the competent authority, after
investigation in the matter. However the fact remains that the
respondent/RI had offered a document which prima facie appears to
be a fabricate record, and is not relating to the vehicle driven by her.
As stated above no objections are raised by the respondent/R1 to the
version of the Licensing authority who is stated to have issued the
Ext:B1 licence to her, that no such licence is issued to her in the
licence number shown in Ext:BL
13. So the only conclusion is that a document which
appears to be bogus had been produced by respondent/R1 stating to
be issued to her by the Licencing authority which is seen denied by
the said authority as per the Ext:B2 letter, to be used in the
proceedings as OP(MV) 1701/07 so as to bring out that she was
having the licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the
accident, as an attempt to avoid the recovery right against her.
14. So the only course now open to this forum is to
forward this order to the Judicial First Class Magistrate
Perumbavoor requesting appropriate action against the
respondent/R1 in OP(MV)1701/07 under the relevant provisions of
Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, which provides penalty for
fabricating false evidence.”
4. The prime contention raised by the learned counsel for
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 5
the appellant is based on the Constitution Bench decision reported in [AIR
2005 SC 2119], Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi etc., with reference to
paragraph 18 of the judgment. In paragraph 18, the Apex Court observed
as under:
“18. 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 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
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 6interest 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.”
5. Apart from the said decision, the learned counsel for the
appellant relied on a 3 Judge Bench decision of the Apex Court reported in
[2002(1) SCC 253 : AIR 2002 SC 236], Pritish v. State of Maharashtra
and Others, where the Apex Court observed as under:
“19. We therefore agree with the impugned judgment that
the appellant cannot complain that he was not heard during the
preliminary inquiry conducted by the Reference Court under Section 340
of the Code. In the result we dismiss this appeal.”
6. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, on
scrutiny of the order impugned, the learned Tribunal failed to form an
opinion that “it is expedient in the interest of justice’ to lodge a complaint
against the appellant herein and, therefore, the order impugned is against
the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the decision in Pritish v. State of
Maharashtra and Others‘ case (supra).
7. For the above reasons, the learned counsel for the
appellant sought interference of the order impugned.
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 7
8. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor supported the
order while conceding that even though the specific words ‘it is expedient
in the interest of justice’ were not used in the order, in toto, the said
finding can still be gathered from the order, and therefore no interference
with the order is necessary.
9. In the decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi
etc.’s case (supra) the Constitution Bench considered a case where a
forged Will was produced before the court while the other side moved an
application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(`Cr.P.C‘ for short) requesting the court to file a criminal complaint to
prosecute appellant No.1 therein, who produced the document. The Apex
Court considered the conflict of opinions between 2 decisions of the Apex
Court rendered by a 3 Judge Bench reported in [(1996) 3 SCC 533], Surjit
Singh v. Balbir Singh and [(1998) 2 SCC 493], Sachida Nand Singh v.
State of Bihar regarding interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(i) and (ii) of
10. In this connection, it is relevant to refer Section 340 of
Cr.P.C which reads as under:
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 8“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or
otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of
Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed
in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in
respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that
Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks
necessary,—
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having
jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the
accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-
bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused
in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence
before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of
an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint
under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for
the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former
Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,–
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court,
by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
[(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court
or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing
in this behalf.]
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 195.”
11. In this connection, paragraphs 19 to 21, 23, 24 to 26 of
the decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi etc.’s case (supra) are
relevant and the same are extracted hereunder:
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 9“19. There is another consideration which has to be
kept in mind. Sub- section (1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C. contemplates
holding of a preliminary enquiry. Normally, a direction for filing of a
complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding before the
Court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded
and the final judgment is rendered. Section 341 provides for an appeal
against an order directing filing of the complaint. The hearing and
ultimate decision of the appeal is bound to take time. Section 343(2)
confers a discretion upon a Court trying the complaint to adjourn the
hearing of the case if it is brought to its notice that an appeal is
pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of
which the matter has arisen. In view of these provisions, the complaint
case may not proceed at all for decades specially in matters arising out
of civil suits where decisions are challenged in successive appellate for
a which are time consuming. It is also to be noticed that there is no
provision of appeal against an order passed under Section 343(2),
whereby hearing of the case is adjourned until the decision of the
appeal. These provisions show that, in reality, the procedure prescribed
for filing a complaint by the Court is such that it may not fructify in the
actual trial of the offender for an unusually long period. Delay in
prosecution of a guilty person comes to his advantage as witnesses
become reluctant to give evidence and the evidence gets lost. This
important consideration dissuades us from accepting the broad
interpretation sought to be placed upon clause (b)(ii).
20. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii),
whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate
where after commission of an act of forgery the document is
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 10subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed
out in Sachida Nand Singh, after preparing a forged document or
committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding
instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or
through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said
proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the
instance of a private party or the police until the Court, where the
document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The
litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such
a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would he
highly detrimental to the interest of society at large.
21. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the
Courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint
and such a course is rarely adopted. It will not be fair and proper to
give an interpretation which leads to a situation where a person
alleged to have committed an offence of the type enumerated in clause
(b)(ii) is either not placed for trial on account of non-filing of a
complaint or if a complaint is filed, the same does not come to its
logical end. Judging from such an angle will be in consonance with the
principle that an unworkable or impracticable result should be
avoided. In Statutory Interpretation by Francis Bennion (Third ed.)
para 313, the principle has been stated in the following manner :
“The court seeks to avoid a construction of an enactment
that produces an unworkable or impracticable result,
since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament.
Sometimes however, there are overriding reasons for
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 11applying such a construction, for example where it
appears that Parliament really intended it or the literal
meaning is too strong.”
The learned author has referred to Sheffield City Council v.
Yorkshire Water Services Ltd. (1991) 1 WLR 58, where it was held as
under :
“Parliament is taken not to intend the carrying out of its
enactments to be unworkable or impracticable, so the
court will be slow to find in favour of a construction that
leads to these consequences. This follows the path taken
by judges in developing the common law. ‘… the common
law of England has not always developed on strictly
logical lines, and where the logic leads down a path that
is beset with practical difficulties the courts have not
been frightened to turn aside and seek the pragmatic
solution that will best serve the needs of society.”
In S.J. Grange Ltd. v. Customs and Excise Commissioners (1979)
2 All ER 91, while interpreting a provision in the Finance Act, 1972,
Lord Denning observed that if the literal construction leads to
impracticable results, it would be necessary to do little adjustment so
as to make the section workable. Therefore, in order that a victim of a
crime of forgery, namely, the person aggrieved is able to exercise his
right conferred by law to initiate prosecution of the offender, it is
necessary to place a restrictive interpretation on clause (b)(ii).
23. That apart, the section which we are required to
interpret is not a penal provision but is part of a procedural law,
namely, Code of Criminal Procedure which elaborately gives the
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 12
procedure for trial of criminal cases. The provision only creates a bar
against taking cognizance of an offence in certain specified situations
except upon complaint by Court. A penal statute is one upon which an
action for penalties can be brought by a public officer or by a person
aggrieved and a penal act in its wider sense includes every statute
creating an offence against the State, whatever is the character of the
penalty for the offence. The principle that a penal statute should be
strictly construed, as projected by the learned counsel for the appellants
can, therefore, have no application here.
24. Coming to the last contention that an effort should
be made to avoid conflict of findings between the civil and criminal
Courts, it is necessary to point out that the standard of proof required in
the two proceedings are entirely different. Civil cases are decided on
the basis of preponderance of evidence while in a criminal case the
entire burden lies on the prosecution and proof beyond reasonable
doubt has to be given. There is neither any statutory provision nor any
legal principle that the findings recorded in one proceeding may be
treated as final or binding in the other, as both the cases have to be
decided on the basis of the evidence adduced therein. While examining
a similar contention in an appeal against an order directing filing of a
complaint under Section 476 of old Code, the following observations
made by a Constitution Bench in M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras
AIR[1954]1SCR1144 give a complete answer to the problem posed :
“(15) As between the civil and the criminal proceedings we
are of the opinion that the criminal matters should be given
precedence. There is some difference of opinion in the High
Courts of India on this point. No hard and fast rule can be
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 13laid down but we do not consider that the possibility of
conflicting decisions in the civil and criminal Courts is a
relevant consideration. The law envisages such an
eventuality when it expressly refrains from making the
decision of one Court binding on the other, or even relevant,
except for certain limited purposes, such as sentence or
damages. The only relevant consideration here is the
likelihood of embarrassment.
(16) Another factor which weighs with us is that a civil suit
often drags on for years and it is undesirable that a criminal
prosecution should wait till everybody concerned has
forgotten all about the crime. The public interests demand
that criminal justice should be swift and sure; that the guilty
should be punished while the events are still fresh in the
public mind and that the innocent should be absolved as
early as is consistent with a fair and impartial trial. Another
reason is that it is undesirable to let things slide till
memories have grown too dim to trust.
This, however, is not a hard and fast rule. Special
considerations obtaining in any particular case might make
some other course more expedient and just. For example, the
civil case or the other criminal proceeding may be so near
its end as to make it inexpedient to stay it in order to give
precedence to a prosecution ordered under S. 476. But in
this case we are of the view that the civil suits should be
stayed till the criminal proceedings have finished.”
25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the
opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 14
view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C.
would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said
provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has
been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e.
during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
26. In the present case, the will has been produced in the
Court subsequently. It is nobody’s case that any offence as enumerated in
Section 195(b)(ii) was committed in respect to the said will after it had
been produced or filed in the Court of District Judge. Therefore, the bar
created by Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. would not come into play and
there is no embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the
offence on the basis of the complaint filed by the respondents. The view
taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and the High Court is
perfectly correct and calls for no interference.”
Thus in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi etc.‘s case (supra), the Apex
Court affirmed the view taken by the Apex Court in Sachida Nand Singh
v. State of Bihar‘s case (supra) and held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of
Cr.P.C would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said
provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has
been produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in any court with
custodia legis.
12. In the instant case, the driving licence alleged to be
forged was produced before the court, and thus the forgery of the same
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 15
was not committed when the document was in the custody of the court. In
the decision reported in [2023 KHC OnLine 7196 : 2023(9) SCC 539 :
2023 SCC OnLine SC 973 : AIR OnLine 2023 SC 1262], Ashok
Gulabrao Bondre v. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh, the Apex Court
considered a question when it considered a complaint filed by the
complainant against the accused therein, alleging commission of offences
punishable under Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470 and 471
r/w Section 34 of the IPC, on the allegation that one of the accused therein
had prepared false and forged documents, namely, personal recognizance
bond and surety bond in criminal case. But the complaint was dismissed
by the learned Magistrate. When the said order was challenged before the
Additional Sessions Judge, the Additional Sessions Judge took the view
that the Magistrate should conduct an enquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C
in the said case. The said finding was confirmed by the High Court also.
In the said case, the question considered by the Apex Court was whether
the embargo under Section 195 of Cr.P.C would be applicable when the
allegation that the documents which are sought to be used as evidence
were already fabricated and forged prior to filing of evidence. Notifying
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 16the said decision, the Apex Court, after referring Surjit Singh v. Balbir
Singh‘s case (supra) and Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar’s case
(supra), held that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C is
not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed
before the document was produced in a court, i.e during the time when the
document is custodia legis. In another decision reported in [2024 KHC
OnLine 8379 : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 717], Arockiasamy v. State of Tamil
Nadu, the Apex Court took the view that there is no embargo under
Section 195(1)(b)(ii) to examine the criminal allegation of forgery of
documents filed in Court, when such forgery is committed before its
production in Court. In the said case, the allegation was that the accused
therein fraudulently had obtained stamp paper and prepared an
unregistered sale agreement. Thereafter the suit was filed by the accused
seeking certain reliefs and in the suit the forged document was filed. Thus
the allegation would not show that the documents were forged when the
matter was sub-judice before the court and it was held therein that the bar
under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) would not attract.
13. The facts of the case in the decision reported in [2025
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 17
KHC OnLine 6715 : 2025 INSC 1009 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1753 : 2025
KLT OnLine 2815], Devendra Kumar v. State of NCT, Delhi is as under:
“A process server employed in the District Court was
allegedly abused, detained, and humiliated by the petitioner,
then a police officer, when he attempted to serve court summons
and warrants at a police station, leading to a complaint being
filed through the Administrative Civil Judge under S.195 CrPC,
upon which the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate directed
registration of an FIR under S.186 and S.341 IPC; this order
was upheld by the Sessions Court and later affirmed by the High
Court on the ground that prima facie obstruction of a public
servant was disclosed. The question that arose for consideration
was whether the registration of an FIR and investigation under
S.156(3) CrPC for offences under S.186 IPC was valid in view of
the bar under S.195 CrPC and whether the acts complained of
constituted obstruction within the meaning of S.186 IPC and
whether the Magistrate erred in directing police investigation
under S.156(3) when a complaint under S.195 CrPC was filed,
instead of directly taking cognizance and issuing process under
S.204 Cr.P.C.”
14. In Devendra Kumar v. State of NCT, Delhi‘s case
(supra), the Apex Court held that, asking the police to investigate the
complaint under Section 156(3) is a very serious error and the Chief
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 18
Metropolitan Magistrate should have straightaway taken cognizance upon
the complaint and issued process under Section 204 as there was no need
to involve the police in a complaint lodged by a Civil Judge for offences
punishable under Sections 186 and 341 of IPC.
15. It is not in dispute that in cases where proceedings under
Section 340 of the Cr.P.C would apply, the court has to record a finding
that `it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate proceedings against
the delinquent’. Here, on a perusal of the records, it could be seen that,
pursuant to the complaint filed by the Sheristadar, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Perumbavoor, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I,
Perumbavoor, based on the impugned order, the learned Magistrate took
cognizance alleging commission of an offence punishable under Section
193 of IPC by the accused and when the case was about to be taken up for
trial, this Criminal Appeal has been filed and further proceedings got
stayed. On perusal of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the impugned order, which
are extracted above, the Tribunal narrated the reasons for passing the
order.
16. Coming back, when the offences enumerated in Section
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 19
195 of Cr.P.C or under Section 215 of BNSS are committed before
production of the documents before the court, Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of
Cr.P.C or Section 215(1)(b)(ii) of BNSS would not apply. At the same
time, some of the offences enumerated therein if committed after the
production of the document in court or in the course of tendering the same
in evidence or such a document is tendered in evidence before the court,
then Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C or Section 215(1)(b)(ii) of BNSS
would apply, necessitating proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C or
under Section 379 of BNSS.
17. Here, on receiving the complaint given by the
Sheristadar of M.A.C.T, Perumbavoor, based on the impugned order
passed by the Tribunal, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offence under Section 193 of IPC and it has been provided that, whoever
intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or
fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a
judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 20
in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
18. Here as could be discernible from the impugned order,
the forged licence was tendered in evidence and marked as Ext.B2. If so,
in this case the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C would attract for
registering a case by the police and the court should opt for the
procedure contemplated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C and thus the Tribunal
rightly stepped into it. When a forged driving licence is tendered in
evidence, the offence under Section 193 of IPC, ie., intentionally giving
false evidence in a judicial proceedings, would occur and the same is
punishable. Such an offence to be proceeded under Section 340 of Cr.P.C or
under Section 379 of BNSS. In the instant case, even though the impugned
order doesn’t specifically refer the words that “it is expedient in the
interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any of the
offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C”, the
impugned order in toto would satisfy the said requirement. If so,
the challenge against the impugned order is found to be meritless and is
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 21
liable to be dismissed.
19. In the result, this appeal fails and is dismissed with
direction to the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Perumbavoor, to
proceed with trial of the case.
20. The interim order shall stand vacated.
Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the
jurisdictional court for compliance and further steps.
Sd/-
A. BADHARUDEEN, JUDGE
rtr/
2026:KER:27895
Crl.Appeal No.1822/2024 22
APPENDIX OF CRL.A NO. 1822 OF 2024
APPELLANT’S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED 24-5-2016
ISSUED TO THE ACCUSED IN C.C NO.923 OF 2015
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE-1,
PERUMBAVOOR.
Annexure A2 TRUE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10-9-
2024 IN CRL.M.C NO.7329 OF 2017 OF THIS
COURT.
