WP CRL.(MD)/5009/2026 of J. Mangayarkarasi Vs The State of Tamilnadu on 3 September 2026

O R D E R

Heard both sides.

2. The petitioner J. Mangayarkarasi has filed this Writ petition in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, seeking a direction to the respondents 3 and 4, namely, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District and the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Virudhunagar, to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them under Section 379 of BNSS read with 215 of the BNSS, in addition to considering the allegation of giving false evidence and filing a false affidavit by 6th respondent in Cr.M.P. No.6230 of 2014 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, thereby affecting the administration of the justice, based on the petitioner’s representation dated 17.06.2026, within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in one way or another, the petitioner is an affected person by the order passed in Cr.M.P. No.6230 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar District. In the said proceedings, the 6th respondent herein has given a false evidence in the form of an affidavit, thereby it is affecting the public justice. The act of the 6th respondent in giving a false affidavit in the judicial proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate Court, according to the petitioner, amounts to perjury. Therefore, the 6th respondent ought to have been prosecuted under Section 379 read with 215 of BNSS, corresponding to the Section 340 read with 195 of the old Cr.P.C.

4. In this regard, the petitioner, who was not a party in that Cr.M.P. No.6230 of 2014, sent a representation to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, dated 17.06.2026, requesting the said Court to take necessary legal action against the 6th respondent under section 379 read with 215 of BNSS. The same representation was also sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar District. As per the postal receipt attached in the typed set of papers, the petitioner had sent that representation to respondent 3 and 4 herein. However, there is no separate representation or copy of the representation addressed to the Chief Judicial Magistrate and marked to the Judicial Magistrate I. In any event, the postal receipt found in the attached typed set shows that the petitioner had sent a representation to the 3rd and 4th respondents herein. Having no action was taken by the Judicial Officer in the category of Chief Judicial Magistrate the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. Initially, it was returned for certain query, after that query was answered by the learned counsel for the petitioner, after the case has been taken on file it is posted for maintainability. The learned counsel for the petitioner made elaborate submission with regard to the facts stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Though the petitioner sent a representation dated 17.06.2026 to the respondents 3 and 4 but no application has been filed by the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Virudhunagar District requesting that Court to initiate action against the 6th respondent under section 379 read with 215 of BNSS.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the Section 379 of BNSS, which says in sub section (1) provides when, upon an application made to the Court in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence. Having the word is mentioned “otherwise” the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, since the petitioner is not a party to the Cr.M.P. proceedings, before the Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar District, the Court itself suo motu, should take perjury action against the 6th respondent on the basis of the petition sent by the petitioner herein. There is no bar to a third party to initiate action against a person who has committed perjury.

6. According to the learned counsel, Section 379(1) wherein it says only when upon an application made to it in this behalf, therefore, it includes 3rd party who is a person interested in the public justice or as per the earlier order of the Judicial proceedings may approach the Court by filing an application under Section 379 read with 215 of the BNSS. In this case, no such attempt or steps or action initiated by the petitioner for filing necessary application under Section 379 read with 215 of the BNSS. Though the representation made to the respondents 3 and 4 has been directly brought before this Court under this Writ Petition, thereby, the registry made a query about the maintainability.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, Cr.M.P. No.6230 of 2014 was disposed of on 01.12.2014. In that proceedings the 6th respondent herein was the petitioner and had filed affidavit which is a false affidavit. Thereby, when a person given a false affidavit to get justice it affects the public justice. Therefore, the Court has to take action against the person who has given false affidavit. The learned counsel further submitted that, the affidavit filed by the 6th respondent herein in the said Cr.M.P. proceedings is not available with the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not approach the Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar, to avail the copy of the affidavit supported with the petition.

8. If such affidavit had been filed in Cr.M.P. No.6230 of 2014, the petitioner ought to have filed a copy application and obtained a certified copy of the affidavit. Without obtaining a copy of the affidavit, merely relying upon the order passed in Cr.M.P. No.6230 of 2014, the petitioner cannot straight away come to a conclusion regarding alleged perjury. Though, the petition may not be straight away maintainable before this Court, the petitioner may approach the Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar. Further, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that, since the petitioner is not a party to the said Cr.M.P. proceedings, direction may be issued to the Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar permitting the petitioner to file a 3rd party copy application to avail the affidavit filed by the 6th respondent in Cr.M.P. No.6230 of 2014 and after availing that affidavit the petitioner may work out further remedy for filing perjury application under Section 379 read with 215 of BNSS.

9. The learned counsel on instructions, further submitted that by abundant caution if at all the records in Cr.M.P. No.6230 of 2014 has been destroyed after following the due procedure, the order available with the petitioner in Cr.M.P. may be taken for consideration for filing the application under Section 379 read with 215 of BNSS before the Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar District.

10. Ultimately, the learned counsel come down with the conclusion though this petition is not maintainable before this Court straight away without approaching the Judicial Magistrate Court, where the perjury taken place and he seeks permission of this Court for withdrawal. Knowing the merits of the disposal, this Court not heard all the respondents herein. This Court is not going to delve into the facts and, therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to approach the Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar for filing perjury application under Section 379 read with 215 of BNSS.

11. During the course of the hearing from the petitioner side, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) Mr. C. Susikumar brough to the notice of this Court that as per the Honourable Supreme Court’s decision, Constitutional Bench in Igbal Singh Marwah & Anr v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr (2005) 4 SCC 370 held that for prosecuting the person who committed the perjury, the interested person have to approach the concerned Court and bring the alleged act of perjury to its notice, whereupon the Court has to follow the provisions of law for taking further action. Having, not approached the Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar and coming straight away to the High Court under the writ jurisdiction cannot be permissible. His submission is considered and recorded.

12. Subject to the above observations, this petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the above liberty. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made such endorsement to withdraw this petition, which is recorded. Finally, the said counsel for the petitioner requested this Court, some direction may be given to the Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar. If the petitioner is filing such application under section 379 read with 215 BNSS, that application may be disposed of within a time bound manner, for the reasons, the perjury occurred in the year 2014 as per the Judicial order in Cr.M.P. No. 6230 of 2014.

13. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar is directed to dispose of the application, if any filed by the petitioner, within 3 months from the date of taking the application on file and only he has to give a finding of facts with regard to perjury or not as per the Section 379 read with 215 BNSS. If a finding is rendered that the alleged act, perjury is made out, the Judicial Magistrate shall take appropriate steps in accordance with law, including forwarding the matter to the competent authority for filing the necessary complaint before the Court having jurisdiction over the alleged offence. As per the submission of the petitioner’s counsel the perjury took place before the Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar, and the competent authority is the same Court of Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhunagar. Therefore, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Virudhunagar is directed to dispose of the application to be filed by the petitioner under Section 379 read with 215 within a period of 3 months from the date of taken on file. After that, if any positive answer is given for perjury, direct Chief Ministerial Officer of his Court, to file private complaint before the same court within one month thereafter.

14. With the above directions this petition is dismissed as withdraw. 03.09.2026 Index :Yes/No Internet :Yes/No NCC :Yes/No

psm

To

1. The Executive Officer, Kariyappatti Town Panchayat, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

2. The Tahsildar, Taluk Office, Kallikudi Taluk, Madurai District.

3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, Srivilliputhur.

4. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Virudhunagar District. Virudhunagar.

5. District Munsif -Cum- Judicial Magistrate, Kariyapatti, Virudhunagar District.

6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

DR. P. MURUGAN, J.

psm

WP. CRL.(MD) No.5009 of 2026 03.09.2026