IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No.841 of 2007. Smt. Memuna wife of Farooq VERSUS The State of Rajasthan Date of Order :::: 19/01/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan Mr. Amin Ali, Counsel for the Petitioner Ms. Manju Dave, Public Prosecutor for the State By the Court : Heard learned counsel for the parties. This miscellaneous petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has been filed against the judgment dated 15.02.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sikar by which he ordered to initiate proceedings under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for committing forgery while deposing her statement before the learned Court in the case. The petitioner, after receipt of the notice dated 20.02.2007 by which she was asked to explain why she should not be punished for the offence under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. for giving false evidence in the case without submitting her explanation before the Court concerned, has approached this Court . Facts, in brief of the case are that in the year 1996 an F.I.R. was lodged by one Farooq, husband of the prosecutrix Mst. Memuna, stating therein that his wife Mst. Memuna has been abducted by some unknown person. The Police, after investigation, submitted a challan against Khalid, who remained absconded for a long period. He was arrested in the year 2006. During investigation, the statement of Mst. Memuna, prosecutrix, was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Laxmangarh, Sikar. As the accused was absconding, proceedings under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. were conducted against him and statement of Mst. Memuna were recorded. The statement of Mst. Memuna, after arrest of accused Khalid were recorded in the trial Court, so thrice statements of prosecutrix were recorded in the proceedings at different stage. In the trial Court, she has refused that any act of abduction or rape was committed by accused Khalid. It is true that in her statements recorded thrice before the different authorities, she has specifically levelled an allegation about the offence of commission of rape and also abduction. But after lapse of almost 11- years, when her statements before the trial Court were recorded, she completely denied about the offence of rape having been committed with her. The trial Court while delivering the judgment recorded the fact that she has committed an offence of purgery, so the proceedings against her under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C. be initiated. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the notice issued is contrary to law and the prosecutrix Mst. Memuna, against whom notice has been issued, has not been asked during trial that which of the three statements given by her is, false. The notice only speaks about the statements given by her, but she has never been offered to give an explanation that how and which of the statement is, false. The learned counsel for the petitioner further pleaded that in the light of these circumstances, no proceedings can be initiated against the petitioner. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State controverted the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and pleaded that it is clearly borne out that Mst. Memuna's whose statements were recorded thrice in the judicial proceedings, and before the trial Court where she completely denied about any offence of rape having been committed with her, the statement, so given is completely contradictory and contrary to what she has deposed before the Magistrate while giving statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and also before the A.C.J.M. while giving the statements when proceedings under Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. were being conducted against the accused. It is a sole discretion of the Sessions Court, who has arrived at a conclusion that Mst. Memuna, the petitioner has given a false statement because in her previous two statements she has implicated the accused for the commission of rape, whereas during trial before the trial Court she has completely denied of any offence of rape having been committed by the accused Khalid. It is true that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the Court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The Court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and to serve the ends of justice, then unless there is a glaring mistake or lapse on the part of the Court the person must be prosecuted for forgery. It is also necessary that in order to make a person liable for purgery, he should have made a statement on oath regarding the facts on which his statement was based and then deny those facts on oath on a subsequent occasion. In the instant case, on previous two occasions, the petitioner has specifically levelled allegations on oath against the accused, but during trial before the Court, she has completely denying the same allegations. The Sessions Judge while delivering the judgment has clearly observed that the petitioner has given false statement. Though, no specific clarification was asked from the petitioner, but while issuing notice the learned Sessions Judge specifically mentioned the statements given by her and asked her to explain why she should not be punished for the offence under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C., still the petitioner has ample chance to explain herself. At this stage, there is neither any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order nor any prejudice is caused to the petitioner. Consequently, this miscellaneous petition is dismissed. (Bhanwaroo Khan) J. ashok/