THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.1236 and 1237 of 2008 Dt.29-07-2010 Pilla Suryakantham and another ..Petitioners V. Station House Officer, Tadepalligudem Police Station, West Godavari District represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Crl.P.Nos.1236 and 1237 of 2008 COMMON ORDER The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1236/2008, who are arrayed as A-1 and A-2, in CC No.190/2004, and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.1237/2006, who are arrayed as A-3 and A-4, in CC No.94/2006 on the file of Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tadepalligudem, filed these criminal petitions invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to quash the proceedings initiated against them for the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC The petitioners in Crl.P.No.1236/2008 are P.Ws.1 and 2 and petitioners in Crl.P.No.1237/2006 are P.Ws.3 and 13 in CC No.355/1998, which was taken on file for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w 34 IPC. The petitioners in both the petitions, who are examined as P.Ws.1,2,3 and 13 in the above CC No.355/98, filed Crl.M.P. No.1224/2003 under Section 320(2) Cr.P.C., before the trial court, stating that they have compromised the matter and prayed the court to record the compromise. Later on, they did not press the petition and the same was closed on 12-1-2004. P.Ws.1 to 3 and 13 were declared hostile stating that they do not know the accused and they do not know anything about the case, though they have given the report to the police. In that view of the matter, the learned Magistrate was of the view that when they have given report covered under Ex.P- 17 narrating all the facts regarding the incident and mentioning the names of the accused 1,2,3 and 5 and their acts against P.Ws.1 to 3 and 13 and others and they filed the petition under Sec.320(3) Cr.P.C., for compromising the matter, they gave a false report to the police and they also gave false evidence before the court in judicial proceedings resiling from their earlier statements made under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C., to acquit the accused or to release the accused from the criminal case, and the Magistrate gave a finding to the said effect as contemplated under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C., stating that the petitioners herein intentionally furnished false information in judicial proceedings and they are liable for punishment under Sec. 193 IPC. This Court in Md. Ibrahim V. State of A.P. (2005(2) ALD (Crl.) 478 (AP) held that when the prosecution witnesses turned hostile and they denied having made the statements recorded by police under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the court can prosecute them under Section 344 (1) Cr.P.C., Section 344(1) contemplates a summary procedure for convicting persons who committed perjury and Section 344(3) saves the power of the court to order prosecution for perjury. The trial court before whom false evidence is given has two options open ie., (i) to follow the summary procedure prescribed under Section 344 (1) Cr.P.C., or (ii) follow the procedure prescribed under Section 344 (3) Cr.P.C., and cause a complaint being filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., Non issuance of show cause notice vitiates the proceedings initiated by the trial court under Section 344(1) Cr.P.C., which mandates a show cause notice being given to the person concerned before punishing him by taking recourse to the summary procedure. The facts in the above case are totally different and are not applicable to the facts in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that under Section 340(1)(c) Cr.P.C., the procedure in the cases mentioned under section 195 IPC, when upon an application made to it in that behalf, any Court is of the opinion that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, such Court may after such preliminary inquiry, record a finding to the said effect, make a complaint thereof in writing and send it to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction. No such procedure has been followed by the Magistrate and the Magistrate himself cannot be a prosecutor and can only be an adjudicator. Therefore, the said proceedings are is liable to be quashed. I do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Section 340 Cr.P.C. postulates the procedure to be followed for the offence committed under Section 340(1)(b) Cr.P.C., which mandates taking cognizance of the offence on a complaint in writing by the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorize in writing in that behalf. Admittedly in the present case, the Magistrate, who tried the case in C.C.No.355 of 1998, gave a finding to the said effect in the judgment in C.C.No.355 of 1998 that P.Ws.1 to 3 and 13 gave a false evidence to facilitate the accused of the charges in the said C.C., and are liable to be punished under Section 193 IPC. As per sub-section (1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C., when upon an application made to it in that behalf or otherwise, any court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 IPC, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a procedure in the 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 preliminary inquiry, as it thinks fit record a finding to that effect, make a complaint thereof in writing and send it to the Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction. The finding recorded by the Magistrate, while disposing of the C.C.No.355 of 2008, is a finding recorded otherwise and can make a complaint thereof in writing, which procedure has been followed by the Magistrate for proceeding against the accused. In view of the same, this Court do not find any merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be prosecuted for the alleged offence. Accordingly, the Criminal Petitions are dismissed. ______________ A.GOPAL REDDY,J Dt.29.07.2010 Kmr/lmv