Perjury threshold and Section 340 discretion: mere pleadings admissions were insufficient to justify action or inherent interference.

Mere admissions in pleadings or affidavits do not amount to perjury unless they are shown to be false in a legally material sense. The court held that the complainant's statements were consistent with the underlying money transaction and did not justify initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC; it also reiterated that a preliminary inquiry is not mandatory, and action lies only where it is expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into the offence. Applying the limited scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, the court found no illegality, infirmity, or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent refusals and declined interference.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the refusal to initiate action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified on the ground that the pleadings and affidavits did not disclose perjury. (ii) Whether the High Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to interfere with the concurrent orders refusing such action.

Issue (i): Whether the refusal to initiate action under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was justified on the ground that the pleadings and affidavits did not disclose perjury.

Analysis: The alleged admissions in the complainant's pleadings and affidavits were found to be consistent with the underlying money transaction and the version that the loan was arranged through the complainant's husband. The contents of the complaint were held not to be false or contradictory in a manner that would amount to giving false evidence or committing perjury. The court also reiterated that a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 is not mandatory and that the decisive question is whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence.

Conclusion: The refusal to proceed under Section 340 was ? No, in English: it was upheld; no perjury was made out and no action under Section 340 was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should exercise inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to interfere with the concurrent orders refusing such action.

Analysis: The court applied the settled limits on inherent jurisdiction, namely that such power is to be used sparingly to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and not as a routine appellate or revisional substitute. On the facts, no illegality, infirmity, or miscarriage of justice was found in the orders of the courts below.

Conclusion: The High Court declined to interfere under Section 482 and upheld the impugned orders.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed because the materials did not justify initiation of perjury proceedings and the case did not warrant exercise of inherent jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere admissions in pleadings or affidavits do not constitute perjury unless they are shown to be false in a legally material sense, and proceedings under Section 340 are to be initiated only when it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence.

---