LexKISHOREBHAI GANDUBHAI PETHANI versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 10 S.C.R. 208 KISHOREBHAI GANDUBHAI PETHANI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR. (Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2013) SEPTEMBER 20, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 1951340 - Applicability of - Held: If documents have been forged and C fabricated prior to filing of those documents in the Court, provisions of ss. 1951340 are not attracted. On the basis of evidence of a witness in a criminal case against the appellant that some manipulation had 0 been done by the appellant in medical report, the complainant lodged a complaint u/ss. 463, 465, 468, 471 and 114 IPC in respect of the tampering with the medical report. Appellant's application u/s.482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint, was dismissed by High Court, E rejecting the contention of the appellant that such a complaint was not maintainable unless it was made by the Court itself under the provisions of s.195 Cr.P .C. Hence the present appeal. F Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. Perjury is an obstruction of justice. Deliberately making false statements which are material to the case, and that too under oath, amounts to crime of perjury. Thus, perjury has always to be seen as a G cause of concern for the judicial system. It strikes at the root of the system itself and disturbs the accuracy of the findings recorded by the court. Therefore, any person found guilty of causing perjury, has to be dealt with H 208 KISHOREBHAI GANDUBHAI PETHANI v. STATE OF 209 GUJARAT seriously as it is necessary for the working of the court A as well as for the benefit of the public at large. [Para 7) [213-C-D] Mohan Singh vs. Late Amar Singh (through LR's) AIR 1999 SC 482: 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 252 -- relied on. B 2. In the instant case, the documents had been forged and fabricated. The manipulation, if any, had been made prior to filing of those documents in the court. Therefore, in such a fact-situation, provisions of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. are not attracted. Therefore, no fault c can be found with the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court. The facts and circumstances of the case do not warrant any interference. [Paras 8 and 14] [213-D- E; 217-C] Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. vs. Meenakshi Marwah and D Anr. AIR2005 SC 2119: 2005 (2) SCR 708 - followed. Ram Ohan vs. State of U.P. and Anr. AIR 2012 SC 2513: 2012 (3) SCR 1059; Sachida Nand Singh and Anr. vs. State of Bihar and Anr. (1998) 2 SCC 493: 1998 (1) SCR 492; P. Swaroopa Rani vs. M. Hari Narayana @ Hari Babu AIR 2008 E SC 1884: 2008 (3) SCR 900; Mahesh Chand Sharma vs. State of U. P. and Ors. AIR 2010 SC 812: 2009 (13) SCR 922; C. Muniappan and Ors. vs. State of Tamil Nadu. AIR 2010 SC 3718: 2010 (10) SCR 262; Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Vimal Kumar Surana and Anr. (2011) F 1 SCC 534: 2010 (14) SCR 248; C.P. Subhash vs. Inspector of Police Chennai and Ors. JT (2013) 2 SC 270: 2013 SCR 545; Rugmini Ammal (Dead by L.Rs.) vs. V. Narayana Reddiar and Ors. AIR 2!108 SC 895: 2007 (13) SCR 587 - relied on. G M. S. Ahlawat vs. State of Haryana and Anr. AIR 2000 SC 168: 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 160 - referred to. Case Law Reference: 1999 (4) Suppl. SCR 160 referred to Para 3 H A B c D E 210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 10 S.C.R. 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 252 relied on Para 6 2005 (2) SCR 708 followed Para 10 2012 (3) SCR 1059 relied on Para 11 1998 (1) SCR 492 relied on Para 11 2008 (3) SCR 900 relied on Para 12 2009 (13) SCR 922 relied on Para 12 2010 (10) SCR 262 relied on Para 12 2010 (14) SCR 248 relied on Para 12 2013 SCR 545 relied on Para 12 2007 (13) SCR 587 relied on Para 12 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1451 of 2013. From the Judgment and Order dated 12.09.2011 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in CRMA No. 3213 of 2011. Sushil Kumar Jain, Puneet Jain, Chhaya Kirti, Chisti Jain, Pratibha Jail') for the Appellant. Nirav C. Thakkar, Mohit D. Ram, Hemantika Wahi for the F Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been G preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2011, passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Criminal Misc. Application No.3213 of 2011 dismissing the appellant's application for quashing the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 being ICR No.180 of 2010 dated 5.7.2010 under Sections 463, 465, 468, 471 and 114 of the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.