Hello great team! I have been falsely accused of molestation. The original complainant got the matter transferred u/s 407, from the JMFC court under whose Jurisdiction it fell. The matter now is before some other JMFC Court. However, the presiding officer of that Court did not accept my 340 application and asked me to file it before JMFC Court of original jurisdiction. The matter is being heard there. I had moved a trf application which was rejected. So now main matter is in one JMFC Court and 340 application in some other JMFC Court. 1) Does a Cri MA u/s 340 pertaining to a matter, have to be in the same JMFC court that is hearing the main matter? 2) If there is a 340 complaint does it not have to be taken up first before main matter proceeds? 3) Can you please cite Bombay High Court precedents in this matter. 4) Is JMFC Court hearing main matter obliged to stay proceeding until disposal of 340 complaint? Thanks
First answer received in 30 minutes.
Lawyers are available now to answer your questions.
1. The court has wrongly held to file this to the original court. once the case is transferred to the present court , the original court has functus officio .
2. So your present court alone can adjudicate your petition filed under section 340 crpc .
3. This is the law which has no exception in Bombay.
4. In such eventuality generically the petition u/s 340 crpc is to be disposed of first.
1. Yes
2. It can be taken simultaneously.
3. It's a law no need of precedent
4. No not obliged. Both are tried separately
1. No, jurisdiction lies within the fact of the application
2. Not at all, both have different facts and merit
3. it depends upon facts of the application
4. as I already advised both are different so the question of stay doesn't arrive at all
Section 340 cr pc complaint is not required to be taken first before main proceedings
2) JMFC court is not required to stay proceedings until disposal of 340 complaint
3)if trial Court is to take a decision relating to alleged perjury or false statement at the initial stage of the proceeding, then in all probability, it will prejudicially affect the fair disposal of the main matter on its merit and therefore it would certainly deflect the course of justice.
4) if a particular judicial or legal proceedings relates to trial of civil proceedings or the contentious issues in a legal proceedings, raised therein by respective pleadings of the parties, to which require final adjudication of the trial court on the merits of the evidence to be led in on record by the parties in support of their respective case, then in that case the most appropriate stage for the trial Judge in such a trial proceeding is to formulate his opinion on filing or non-filing of complaint contemplated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. would be at the final stage of disposal of the main matter on merits.
1. You have been intimated by the court about it then what else is yor doubt about it because the court which rejected your application has passed the order specifying the rule applicable to this situation.
2. No, it is not so, for proving perjury the ingredients have to be extracted from the main case only after the witness is deposing evidence on oath and found to be false.
4. No, it is not obliged to stay the proceedings so.
