- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47873 CRL.A No. 600 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 600 OF 2014 BETWEEN: 1. O THIPPESH S/O OBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/A SJM LAYOUT, BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501. 2. P. SHIVASHANKAR S/O PUTTANAIK AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A SJM LAYOUT, BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501. 3. B.C. HARISH S/O B. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/A BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501. 4. N. KALLESH S/O NAGENDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/A BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501. Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47873 CRL.A No. 600 of 2014 5. DURGESH PUJAR.M S/O MARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/A BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. UMESH P.B., ADV. FOR SRI. R. B. DESHPANDE, ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BHARAMASAGARA POLICE STATION CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501. 2. G.S.ASHOK S/O G.T.SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A BHARAMASAGARA VILLAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK & DISTRICT - 577501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. LAKSHMAN, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. VINAYAKA S. KOTI, ADV. FOR SRI. S.S. KOTI, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.341 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED:11/13.3.14 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., AND SPL. JUDGE (SC/ST (PA) ACT), CHITRADURGA IN SPL.C.NO.28/11 (SC/ST) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO ISSUING DIRECTION TO THE CAO TO LODGE COMPLAINT AGAINST THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THE CONCERNED JURISDICTIONAL MAGISTRATE FOR THE OFFENCE OF PERJURY AND ALLOW THE APPEAL. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47873 CRL.A No. 600 of 2014 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Appellants have preferred this appeal against the order dated 11.03.2014 passed in Special Case No.28/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga (for short 'the trial Court') insofar as it relates to issuing direction to the CAO to lodge a complaint against the appellants who are PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 for the offence of perjury. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court. 3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the DYSP, Chitradurga Sub-Division, Chitradurga submitted the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under sections 323, 324, 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. In this case, PW1 to PW14 have adduced their evidence as PW1 to PW14. After trial, the trial Court has convicted the accused for the commission of offence under sections 323, 324, 506 of IPC and Section - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47873 CRL.A No. 600 of 2014 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and passed a sentence that, the accused shall undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and further the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and further the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 506 of IPC and the accused shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years with fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 and all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. 4. Further, the trial Court has passed the following order: "C.A.O., is directed to lodge complaint before concerned Jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate as against PWs.1,2,3,6 and 7 for the offences of perjury as discussed in the judgment of conviction and order on sentence by furnishing certified copy of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47873 CRL.A No. 600 of 2014 depositions along with comlaint and Judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by this court to the concerned court." 5. Being aggrieved by the direction issued to the CAO to lodge a complaint against PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 for the offence of perjury, appellants have preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellants would submit that, the learned Sessions Judge has failed to understand that mere contradiction in two statements does not attract the offence of perjury automatically, unless the same is verified by conducting preliminary enquiry. In the instant case, because of the differences in the statement made by appellants, at different points of the time, the learned Sessions Judge has termed it as an Offence of perjury, which is not proper and correct. There is no law warranting the learned Sessions Judge to believe the version deposed by appellants in their examination-in- chief, unless the same is verified by other circumstantial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47873 CRL.A No. 600 of 2014 evidence such as the facts elicited in the cross- examination, etc. Only because appellants have stated true facts in their cross-examination, since it is contradictory to the statements made in the examination- in-chief, cannot be termed as an offence of perjury. Further he would submit that today PW1 has compromised with the Accused/appellant in Crl.A.No.270/2014. This Court has allowed the compromise petition filed by both victim and the accused under Section 320 r/w 482 of IPC relying on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMAWATAR vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH passed in Criminal Appeal No.1393/2011 dated 25.10.2021. On all these grounds, it is sought for allowing this appeal. 7. Before appreciation of the materials on record, it is necessary to mention here as to the provision of Section 340 of Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Same reads as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47873 CRL.A No. 600 of 2014 "S.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 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 for 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. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47873 CRL.A No. 600 of 2014 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." 8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the trial Court has not complied the mandatory procedure as required under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Before passing the impugned order, the trial Court has not - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47873 CRL.A No. 600 of 2014 conducted any preliminary enquiry or has not directed the CAO to conduct preliminary enquiry to initiate the proceedings against these appellants for the offence of perjury. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not sustainable under law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: O R D E R (i) Appeal is allowed. (ii) The order dated 11.03.2014 passed in Special Case No.28/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga insofar as it relates to issuing direction the CAO to lodge a complaint against the appellants who are PW1, PW2, PW3, PW6 and PW7 for the offence of perjury, is set aside. Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27