- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 23850 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. VINOD KUMAR P. NAIR S/O SHRI P. VASUDEVAN NAIR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS SHIMOGA, GOPALA EXTENSION SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA - 577 205 SHOWN IN COMPLAINT AS: VINOD KUMAR NAIR S/O VASUDEVA NAIR AGED 44 YEARS POLICE CONSTABLE 1ST CROSS, NEAR PADMA TALKIES GOPALA, SHIVAMOGGA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MADHAV BALAJI KASHYAP, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE FTSC - II (POCSO) SHIVAMOGGA R Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. B. PRAMOD, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT V/O DATED 12/09/2025) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W SECTION 482 OF CRPC (528 BNSS, 2023) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C. NO. 9/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, SHIVAMOGGA, IN SO FAR AS THE AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED IS CONCERNED, ALLEGING COMMISSION OF OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SEC. 193 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.9/2024 for the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: Petitioner a police constable with 1st Battalion, Karnataka State Reserve Police, Bengaluru, was previously working as a Secretary personnel/Supervisor in the premises of McGann Hospital situated at Shivamogga. During his tenure a minor girl was kidnapped from the said hospital and sexually assaulted by four accused persons on the intervening night of 5.12.2020 and 6.12.2020. A crime was registered and on conclusion of investigation, final report was filed against four accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 366, 376, 506 of IPC, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii), 3(2)(v) of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The petitioner who was cited as a prosecution witness was examined as P.W.7. During the course of cross-examination, since he was partly treated as hostile, petitioner was confronted with the statements made by petitioner under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. 4. The Sessions Judge proceeded to convict the accused and simultaneously directed the respondent to lodge a complaint against the petitioner in terms of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. alleging that petitioner is guilty of offences punishable under Section 193 of IPC. 5. The following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether the petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable in view of alternate remedy under Section 341 of Cr.P.C.? (2) Whether the complaint lodged by the learned Sessions Judge under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 contravention of the procedure provided under Section 340 (2) of Cr.P.C.? (3) Whether the proceedings pending in CC.No.9/2024 for offences punishable under Section 193 of IPC. are sustainable since the complaint alleging commission of offence of perjury under Section 193 of IPC. is not made out even if the allegations are accepted in entirety?" 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds has contended that Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements recorded by the police are not on Oath and therefore, even if the charge sheet material is accepted in entirety, no offence is made out. Referring to Section 162 of Cr.P.C., it is argued that Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements are not at all admissible. He would further point out that the learned Sessions Judge before ordering to tender a written complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate has not followed the procedure provided under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Referring to Section 340 of Cr.P.C. he would point out that the Court must be of the opinion - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 that the prosecution is sought to be launched only in the event it is expedient in the interest of justice. While taking this Court through Section 340 of Cr.P.C., he would point out that preliminary enquiry is not conducted by the learned Judge before directing its Registry to submit a written complaint to the Magistrate of I Class having jurisdiction. 7. Per contra, learned HCGP would point out that the present petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. He submits that petitioner if he is aggrieved by the lodging of the complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., he has the remedy of an appeal under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, requests this Court to dismiss the petition as not maintainable. 8. Heard the learned counsel on record. This Court has given its anxious consideration to Section 161 statement of petitioner who was cited as C.W.7. This Court has also examined the evidence of petitioner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 examined as P.W.7. This Court has also given anxious consideration to the complaint filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC. Finding on point No.1: 9. Learned HCGP referring to section 341 of Cr.P.C has argued that petitioner has a remedy against the order of the Sessions Judge directing the filing of the complaint under section 340 Cr.P.C for the offence punishable u/s 193 I.P.C and therefore it is contended that petition is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable 10. Sub section 1 of section 341 gives a right of appeal against orders passed under Sub section 1 or 2 of section 340. However, on reading the prayer column in the captioned petition, petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in C.C.No.9/2024 for the offence punishable under section 193 IPC . Perusal of - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 the records, discloses that petitioner has not questioned the order of the Sessions Judge passed under 340(2) of Cr.P.C against which an appeal lies under section 341 Cr.P.C. 11. Even if petitioner has not chosen to challenge the above said order, this Court is of the view that petitioner can independently maintain a 482 petition seek quashing of the proceedings on the ground that no offence is made out even if the complaint averments are accepted at its face value. Therefore this Court proceeds to hold that the 482 petition in the present context, facts and circumstances is maintainable. While the accused has an option of challenging the order of the Court directing to register complain under section 340(2) Cr.P.C, the party aggrieved by the registration of complaint can at the same time can seek quashing of the proceeding under section 482 without availing the remedy of an appeal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 under section 341 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered in the negative. Finding on point Nos. 2 and 3: 12. Before this court proceeds further, it deems it fit to advert to section 340 Cr.P.C. Section 340 Cr.P.C is extracted which reads as under " 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 interest 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 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; - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 (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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 13. On reading the above said section the words "appears to have been committed" clearly depicts the intend of the legislature that there must be sufficient material; before the court to show that the offence is likely to have been committed. This court in numerous judgments has held that before setting criminal law into motion this court must exercise great caution and it must be satisfied that there is reasonable foundational for the charge in respect of which prosecution is directed. The power under section 340 is not an absolute one. The enquiry can be made or a complaint can be filed only when the Court comes to a conclusion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to do so. Therefore a complaint under section 193 IPC relating to perjury should be taken up only when there is some prima facie proof that the alleged statement is made which is intentionally false. 14. The crucial question that need attention of this court is as to whether a 161 statement of a witness in a - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 criminal prosecution can be subjected to perjury proceedings on the ground that witness on mounting the witness box has not reconciled with the 161 statement. 15. To attract perjury under section 193 IPC it is necessary to demonstrate that such a person or witness should have made a statement on oath regarding the facts on which the statements were made and then deny those facts on oath on a subsequent occasion. Explanation to section 162 of Cr.P.C contains a new provision and the same ensures that no statement made to the police which is reduced to writing be signed by the person who makes it and cannot be used for any other purpose than those stated in the section. Therefore section 162 protects persons from being pinned down to statements recorded by police as it contains a provision against the police officers taking signatures of the persons making the statements. Therefore the above said section creates a general bar from using statements made before police during investigation on the assumption that the said - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 statements are not made during circumstances inspiring confidence. Therefore, the intention of the legislature in framing the above said section is to create free disclosure of information and to protect the person making the statements from a supposed unreliability of police testimony as to alleged statements. 16. In the light pf these safeguards provided under section 162 Cr.P.C and the fact that these statements made to police during investigation stand excluded under section 162 Cr.P.C, this Court deems it fit to advert to contents of the 161 statement to ascertain whether learned Session judge was justified in directing to launch a complaint for perjury against petitioner. The 161 statement is extracted which reads as under: "ಾನು UÁÎ ಆಸ ೆಯ ಈೆ 02 ಂಗಂದ ೆಕೂ ಸೂಪ /!ೈಸ ಆ# $ೆಲಸ &ಾ'$ೊಂ'(ೆ)ೕೆ, F ¢£À ¥ÉÆðøï ನವರು ಬಂದು ನನ0ನು0 12ಾರ &ಾ'ದರು. 3ಾಂಕ: 06-12-2020 ರಂದು 4ಾ ಸು&ಾರು 2-2.30 ಗಂ5ೆ 6ೊ7ೆ ಒಂದು ಹುಡು# ತುತು< => ಾ? ಘಟಕ$ೆB 6ೊರ#ಂದ ಬಂದಳD. ಾನು ಆ$ೆಯನು0 ಎೆ 6ೋ#(ೆ)? Fಾರ Gೊ ೆ 6ೋ#(ೆ)? Fಾ$ೆ - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 ಇಷುJ 6ೊ7ೆ ಬಂ(ೆ? ಎಂದು 12ಾರ &ಾಡಲು ಮುಂ(ಾ(ಾಗ Lೇ4ೆ ೆಕೂಯವರು ಮತು7 ಇತ4ೆ ಜನ4ೆNಾ ಬಂದರು. ಅPೊJ7ೆ ಅೆ ಬಂದ ಓR SೕTJ SೕT ಸುU ರವರು ಆ ಹುಡು#ಯನು0 ಕ4ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಓR SೕTJ ಒಳೆ ಕ4ೆದು$ೊಂಡು 6ೋದರು. ಅ 12ಾರ &ಾ'(ಾಗ ಾ ಆಸ ೆಯVೕ $ೆಲಸ &ಾಡು7ದ) ಮೋW ಎಂಬುವವನು ಮತು7 ಅವರ ೆ0ೕXತರು 6ೊರೆ ಊಟ $ೊ'ಸು ೆ7ೕ!ೆ ಎಂದು ನಂZ[ Lೈ\ ಮತು7 ಓ]ಯ ಕ4ೆದು$ೊಂಡು ಸು&ಾರು ದೂರ 2ಾನU ಬ 6ೋ# ಬಲವಂತ!ಾ# ಅ ಾ2ಾರ &ಾ'ದರು ಎಂದು ¹zÀ¼ÀÄ ಕೂಡNೇ Sೕಸ ನವರು ಮX^ಾ SೕT ನವೆ _ೕ &ಾ' 12ಾರ [ದರು. ಈ 3ನ SೕT ನವಂದ ಪ`ಣ< 12ಾರ ಯNಾ# ರb ಾ ಎಂಬ ಅcಾಪ7 ವಯ[?ನ ಹುಡು# ತನ0 ಾdಯ => ೆ? ಸಲು!ಾ# ಾ ಆಸ ೆಯ ಸು&ಾರು ಒಂದು ಂಗಂದ ಇ¯Éèà ಇ(ಾ)ಗ ಾ ಆಸ ೆಯVೕ $ೆಲಸ &ಾಡುವ ಮೋW ಎಂLಾತನು ಅವೆ ಸ6ಾಯ &ಾಡು7ದ. ನಂತರ ರb ಾಳ fLೈU ನಂಬ ಪgೆದು$ೊಂ'ದು) 3ಾಂಕ: 05- 12-2020 ರಂದು 4ಾ 10.30 ಗಂ5ೆೆ ರb ಾೆ ಊಟ$ೊrಸುವh(ಾ# 6ೇ ನಂZ[ ಆಸ ೆdಂದ ಕ4ೆದು$ೊಂಡು 6ೋ# ನಂತರ ಓ]ಯ ಬಲವಂತ!ಾ# ಹ7[$ೊಂಡು ಅವರ ¸ÉßÃXತ4ೊಂ3ೆ 2ಾನU ಬ ಕ4ೆದು$ೊಂಡು 6ೋ# ಬಲವಂತ!ಾ# ಅ ಾ2ಾರ &ಾ'ರು ಾ74ೆಂದು w½zÀħA¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ." - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 17. It is also relevant to refer to the deposition of the petitioner given during the trial. The same is extracted which reads as under: "1. 2020 ರ 'ೆಂಬ ಂಗನ ಾನು ಾ ಆಸ ೆಯ ಸೂಪ !ೈಸ $ೆಲಸ &ಾಡು7ರು!ಾಗ ಒಬi (ಾ3ಯವರು 4ೋ#ಯ Gೊ ೆ ಬಂದು ಆ$ೆಯ ಅ5ೆಂಡ ಇಲ ಎಂದು [ರು ಾ74ೆ. ಾವh ಆಸ ೆಯ ಆವರಣದ ಹುಡು>(ೆವh. 4ಾ 2 ಗಂ5ೆೆ ೊಂದ Lಾಲ> ಆಸ ೆಯ ೇR ೆ ಬಂ3ರು ಾ7^ೆ. ಆಗ ಾನು ಆ$ೆಯನು0 Sೕಸೆ 6ಾಜರುಪ'[ರು ೆ7ೕೆ. ನನೆLೇ4ೆ Fಾವh(ೇ 12ಾರ ೊ7ಲ. (ಈ ಹಂತದ ಾb ಅjkೕಜೆೆ ಪ`ರಕ!ಾದ ಾlmವನು0 ೕಡ(ೆ ಇದುದ)ಂದ cಾೕ ಸ!ಾಲು &ಾಡಲು ಅನುಮ ೕಡNಾdತು). cಾೕ ಸ!ಾಲುಃ- ಸ$ಾ< ಅjkೕಜಕಂದ 2. 3ಾಂಕ 8.12.2020 ರಂದು ಾನು Sೕಸೆ 6ೇ$ೆ ೕ' ೊಂದ ¨Á®Q ¢B 6.12.2020 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁågÁwæ 2.30 gÀ ºÉÆwÛUÉ UÉÃmï §½ §AzÁUÀ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀ£ÀߣÀÄß Hl PÉÆr¸ÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ºÉý ತನ0ನು0 Lೈ\ ಮತು7 ಓ]oಗಳ ಕ4ೆದು$ೊಂಡು 6ೋ# ದೂರದ 2ಾನU ಬ ಬNಾ ಾBರ &ಾ'ರು ಾ74ೆ ಎಂದು ನನೆ [ರು ಾ7^ೆ ಎಂದ4ೆ ಸಯಲ. ಸದ 12ಾರವನು0 ಾನು Sೕಸರ ಮುಂ(ೆ 6ೇ$ೆ ೕ'ರು ೆ7ೕೆ ಎಂದ4ೆ ಸಯ®è. ಾನು 3ಃ 8.12.2020 ರಂದು Sೕಸೆ 6ೇ$ೆ ೕ' ಅದರ " 3ಃ 6.12.2020 ರಂದು 4ಾ ಸು&ಾರು 2-2.30 ಗಂ5ೆ 6ೊ7ೆ ………. ಅ ಾ2ಾರ &ಾ'ರು ಾ74ೆ ಎಂದು ದುಬಂ3ರುತ7(ೆ - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 " (ಾbೆ 6ೇ$ೆಯನು0 ಓ3 6ೇದು) ಾb ಅದನು0 4ಾಕ[ರು ಾ74ೆ.) ಎಂದು 6ೇರು ೆ7ೕೆ ಎಂದ4ೆ ಸಯಲ. ಸದ 6ೇ$ೆಯನು0 p 35 ಎಂದು, 6ೇ$ೆಯ qಾಗವನು0 p-35(ಎ) ಎಂದು ಗುರುಸNಾdತು. 3. 3: 25.12.2020 ರಂದು ಾನು Sೕಸೆ 6ೇ$ೆ ೕ'ದು) ಅದರ" ಈ 3ವಸ ನನ0 ಮುಂದುವ4ೆದ 6ೇ$ೆಯನು0 ೕಡುವh(ೇೆಂದ4ೆ……………… ಒಬiರು ಅ ಾ2ಾರ &ಾ'ರು ಾ74ೆ ಎಂದು ದುಬಂತು" (ಾbೆ 6ೇ$ೆಯನು0 ಓ3 6ೇದು) ಾb ಅದನು0 4ಾಕ[ರು ಾ74ೆ.) ಎಂದು 6ೇರು ೆ7ೕೆ ಎಂದ4ೆ ಸಯಲ. ಸದ 6ೇ$ೆಯನು0 p 36 ಎಂದು, 6ೇ$ೆಯ qಾಗವನು0 p-36(ಎ) ಎಂದು ಗುರುಸNಾdತು. cಾೕ ಸ!ಾಲು:- 1 ೇ ಆ4ೋp ಪರ sೕ t.ಆ .ಆ ವ>ೕಲಂದಃ 4. ಒಬi (ಾ3ಯರು ಬಂದು 4ೋ#ಯ ಅ5ೆಂಡ ಇಲ ಎಂದು 6ೇದರು ಆಗ ಾನು ಆಸ ೆಯ ಆವರಣದ ಹುಡು>(ೆನು, ನಂತರ 4ಾ 2.00 ಗಂ5ೆೆ ೊಂದ Lಾಲ> ೇR ಬ ಬಂ(ಾಗ ಆ$ೆಯನು0 12ಾ[ ಆ$ೆಯನು0 Sೕಸರ ವಶ$ೆB $ೊ5ೆJನು ಎಂಬ 12ಾರವನು0 Sೕಸರ ಮುಂ(ೆ 6ೇಲ ಎಂದ4ೆ ಸ. ೊಂದ Lಾಲ> 4ೋ#ಯ Gೊ ೆ ಇರಲ, ಆ$ೆ 2 ಗಂ5ೆೆ ಬಂದಳD, ಆ$ೆಯನು0 12ಾ[ Sೕಸೆ ವX[(ೆವh ಎಂದು ಸುಳDv 6ೇಳD7(ೆ)ೕೆ ಎಂದ4ೆ ಸಯಲ. cಾೕ ಸ!ಾಲು - 2 ೇ ಆ4ೋp ಪರ sೕ ಎ.ಎಂ.1 ವ>ೕಲಂದಃ 1 ೇ ಆ4ೋp ಪರ ವ>ೕಲರು &ಾ'ದ cಾೕ ಸ!ಾಲನು0 ಅಳವ'[$ೊಳvಲು $ೋದು) ಅವರ $ೋ$ೆಯನು0 ಮ0ಸNಾdತು. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 cಾೕ ಸ!ಾಲು:- 3 ೇ ಆ4ೋp ಪರ sೕ ಎ.!ೈ.p ವ>ೕಲಂದಃ 1 ೇ ಆ4ೋp ಪರ ವ>ೕಲರು &ಾ'ದ cಾೕ ಸ!ಾಲನು0 ಅಳವ'[$ೊಳvಲು $ೋದು) ಅವರ $ೋ$ೆಯನು0 ಮ0ಸNಾdತು. cಾೕ ಸ!ಾಲುಃ- 4 ೇ ಆ4ೋp ಪರ sೕ 6ೆw.ಎಂ.ಎT ವ>ೕಲಂದಃ 1 ೇ ಆ4ೋp ಪರ ವ>ೕಲರು &ಾ'ದ cಾೕ ಸ!ಾಲನು0 ಅಳವ'[$ೊಳvಲು $ೋದು) ಅವರ $ೋ$ೆಯನು0 ಮ0ಸNಾdತು. ಮರು 12ಾರxೆಃ ಇಲ " 18. The words "any person" used in Section 161 are quite general and would include accused person also. Section 161 though comprehensive a police officer can examine any person supposed to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case. But Section 162(2) of Cr.P.C. contains mandate to a Investigating Officer not to obtain the signatures of the persons questioned, when a statement is reduced to writing. 19. It is well settled that statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C are not substantive pieces of - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 evidence. Such statements are only intended to assist the investigating agency in collecting material during investigation and cannot be used as evidence either against the accused or even against the witness who made them. Section 162 Cr.P.C. places an express embargo on the use of statements made to the police during investigation, except for the limited purpose of contradicting a prosecution witness in the manner prescribed under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, a statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not bind the witness, nor can it be treated as a solemn affirmation before a judicial authority so as to attract the penal consequences contemplated under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code for giving false evidence. 20. As per the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the Petitioner, who is cited as a prosecution witness, has stated that on 06.12.2020 at around 2.00 to 2.30 a.m., the victim returned to the hospital, and the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 Petitioner, who was then on duty as a security guard, questioned her as to where she had gone, with whom she had gone, and why she had returned at such an odd hour. The statement further indicates that by then, other security guards had also gathered at the spot, and one police officer by name Sunil arrived and took the victim inside the OT post for inquiry. However, while deposing before the Sessions Court, the Petitioner has stated on oath that on the said night he saw the victim entering the hospital around 2.00 a.m. and immediately handed her over to the police. Thus, the latter part of the 161 statement is effectively denied by the Petitioner, thereby indicating that he was not privy to what transpired inside the OT post where the police officer questioned the victim. On a careful perusal of the Petitioner’s deposition before the Sessions Court, it cannot be inferred that he turned hostile or failed to support the prosecution case. Even from the 161 statement, it is evident that before the Petitioner could ascertain why the victim had gone out at - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 such late hours, other security guards and the police officer had already intervened, and the victim was taken by the police officer for inquiry. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the 161 statement and the Petitioner’s sworn evidence before the Court does not disclose the commission of an offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, relying solely on the alleged contradiction between the witness’s deposition and his earlier 161 statement, has invoked Section 340 Cr.P.C. and directed initiation of proceedings under Section 193 IPC for perjury. 21. Such a course of action is legally untenable. The mere fact that a witness has made a statement during investigation which does not correspond in all respects with his evidence in Court does not per se amount to giving false evidence within the meaning of Section 193 IPC. For an offence of perjury to be made out, it must be shown that the witness has intentionally made a false statement on oath before a judicial proceeding, with the - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 knowledge that the statement is false or with a belief that it is not true. Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not made on oath, nor before a judicial officer, and hence cannot constitute a valid foundation for invoking the offence under Section 193 IPC. 22. Moreover, Section 162 Cr.P.C. itself provides a protective shield to witnesses by prohibiting the use of such statements for any purpose other than contradiction during trial. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh [(1964) 4 SCR 485], Bhagwan Singh v. State of Punjab [(1952) SCR 812], and Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. [AIR 1959 SC 1012], has consistently held that statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and can only be used for limited contradiction, and not for prosecution or punishment of the maker thereof. Similarly, in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 1 SCC 253], the Apex Court has observed that the power under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to be exercised sparingly and only when it is expedient in the - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 interest of justice, and that a mere discrepancy or contradiction between a prior statement and testimony in Court would not, by itself, warrant prosecution for perjury. 23. Thus, when the very foundation of the alleged falsehood rests upon a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., which is not binding upon the witness and is inadmissible in evidence except for limited contradiction, initiation of proceedings under Section 193 IPC cannot be legally sustained. The variance between the petitioner’s testimony during trial and his earlier 161 statement cannot constitute perjury, as the former is a sworn statement before a Court of law, whereas the latter is a police- recorded statement carrying no evidentiary value or binding effect. Consequently, the impugned action of invoking Section 340 Cr.P.C. and registration of a complaint under Section 193 IPC against the petitioner is wholly misconceived and contrary to the settled principles governing perjury and evidentiary admissibility under criminal jurisprudence. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 24. Therefore, even if a person is found to be making a false statement in answer to questions under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. he cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 193 or Section 211 of the IPC. Statements under Section 161 are not evidence but can be only used at trial only for contradictions and omissions. Admittedly, the 161 statement is not signed by the petitioner. The section further protects person from being pinned down to statements recorded by the police. 25. Therefore, the crucial question that arises for consideration before this Court is as to whether the Sessions Judge on the ground that petitioner who was cited as a prosecution witness was partly treated hostile can be subjected to perjury proceedings under Section 193. 26. Section 340 of Cr.P.C. enables the Court if it is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made in respect of an offence - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 alleged to have been committed may direct to file a written complaint to the nearest Magistrate. Based on 161 statement, the ingredients of Section 193 of IPC are not at all made out. The learned Sessions Judge clearly erred in preferring a complaint for perjury in absence of prima facie proof. 161 statement does not bind the petitioner. On reading his evidence, a petitioner who was a Security Officer has made a statement according to him is rightful and truthful. Therefore, his evidence recorded before the Court being partially contrary to 161 statement does not constitute any offence much less an offence under Section 193 of IPC. 27. The law relating to initiation of proceedings for perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is well crystallized through a catena of judicial pronouncements. The offence of perjury is not made out merely because a witness has made a statement in Court that is inconsistent with or contradictory to his previous - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The essence of the offence under Section 193 IPC lies in the making of a false statement willfully and knowingly, on oath, before a judicial authority. The falsity must be deliberate and material to the proceedings. Therefore, before setting in motion the machinery under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to satisfy itself that the alleged falsehood is intentional, substantial, and capable of influencing the judicial decision. 28. Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not intended to be used as a tool to punish every discrepancy or inconsistency in evidence. The provision confers a discretionary power upon the Court, to be exercised only when it is expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute the person for giving false evidence. The Supreme Court, in a line of authorities such as Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam [(1971) 1 SCC 774], Iqbql Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [(2005) 4 SCC 370], Pritish v. State of Maharashtra [(2002) 1 SCC 253], and Amarsang - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel [(2017) 1 SCC 113], has emphasized that the power under Section 340 Cr.P.C. should be exercised with utmost caution, and only when the Court is satisfied that: (i) An offence under Sections 193 to 196 or 199 to 200 IPC appears to have been committed in relation to a proceeding before it; (ii) It is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made; and (iii) The Court has formed a prima facie opinion, supported by cogent material, that the falsehood was deliberate and intended to mislead the Court. 29. In the context of the present case, the petitioner, a security guard cited as a prosecution witness in a rape case, had given a statement during investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and subsequently deposed in - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 Court during trial. The learned Sessions Judge has, merely on the ground that the petitioner’s testimony in Court was at variance with his earlier police statement, invoked Section 340 Cr.P.C. and directed initiation of proceedings under Section 193 IPC. Such an approach overlooks the basic evidentiary principle that a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. does not constitute substantive evidence and is expressly protected under Section 162 Cr.P.C. from being used for any purpose other than contradiction. 30. A statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not made on oath, is not given before a judicial officer, and does not carry any evidentiary sanctity so as to form the foundation for prosecuting a witness for perjury. The variance between a non-substantive statement recorded during investigation and a sworn deposition at trial cannot by itself be construed as a willful falsehood attracting Section 193 IPC. The Supreme Court has consistently held that mere contradictions between two statements, unless shown to be willful and material to the core issue, do not - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 justify invoking Section 340 Cr.P.C. (Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 8 SCC 34; Perumal v. Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377). 31. Therefore, in the present set of facts, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have first conducted a preliminary inquiry to determine whether there was any deliberate intention on the part of the witness to mislead the Court, and whether the alleged falsehood was material and had a direct bearing on the outcome of the trial. Absent such a finding, initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. based solely on contradictions between the 161 statement and trial deposition is impermissible in law. The statutory safeguard under Section 162 Cr.P.C. and the limited evidentiary value of 161 statements make it clear that the petitioner’s testimony cannot be treated as perjury, and the prosecution under Section 193 IPC is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the governing principles laid down by the - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39916 WP No. 23850 of 2025 Apex Court. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered in the affirmative and point No.3 is answered in the negative. 32. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The entire proceedings in C.C.No.9/2024 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Shivamogga, for the offences punishable under Section 193 of IPC, are hereby quashed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 4 Sl No.: 1