Fabricated evidence intended for judicial use can attract Section 193 IPC, and Sections 340 and 195 CrPC may not bar prosecution.

Non-appearance in response to separate summons may be treated as distinct defaults and can expose the to trial for offences under Section 174 IPC. A complaint alleging false declarations and fabricated evidence can also disclose an offence under Section 193 IPC, because that provision covers fabrication intended for use in judicial proceedings. Sections 340 and 195 CrPC do not bar such a complaint where the allegation concerns intended, not already used, fabricated evidence. The challenge to maintainability therefore failed and the prosecution was permitted to proceed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether non-appearance in response to the first three summons constituted a triable offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. (ii) Whether the complaint alleging false declarations and fabricated evidence disclosed an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was barred by Sections 340 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether non-appearance in response to the first three summons constituted a triable offence under Section 174 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The non-appearance on each of the first three occasions was treated as a separate default. The question at this stage was not whether guilt was established, but whether the applicant could be put to trial for each alleged non-response to the summons.

Conclusion: The applicant was liable to be tried for the alleged offences arising from the first three instances of non-appearance.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint alleging false declarations and fabricated evidence disclosed an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was barred by Sections 340 and 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The alleged falsity of the declarations was a matter for trial on evidence. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held inapplicable because it concerns situations where fabricated evidence has already been used in judicial proceedings, whereas Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 also covers fabrication of evidence intended to be used in judicial proceedings. The complaint, read as a whole, was held to disclose such an allegation, and the challenge to maintainability was rejected.

Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was maintainable and not barred by Sections 340 or 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the criminal complaint failed, and the prosecution was permitted to proceed.

Ratio Decidendi: Fabrication of evidence intended for use in judicial proceedings can attract Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the procedural bar under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 applies only where such evidence has already been used in judicial proceedings.

---