JUDGMENT Bhawani Singh, J.—This appeal arises out of the order of Additional Sessions Judge (2), Simla, in judgment dated 30-4-1987 whereby the appellant has been ordered to be prosecuted under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has a grievance against this order and the complaint filed under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla, on 6-5-1987. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant filed a complaint to the police alleging, inter alia, that the accused came near his house and started abusing, quarrelling threatening and throwing debris on the common Path Kirpa Ram, one of the accused, fired a shot which hit dram of water placed on the top of the wall there and then tried to escape towards the field and while doing so, he fired another shot which hit the door of the house of the appellant. Regarding this incident, a case under sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 27 of the Indian Arms Act was registered by the police and the investigation stated. Finally a challan in the case was filed and the accused was committed to the Court of Sessions of 2-4-1986. 3. The allegations against the accused disclosed the aforesaid of offences and charge was thus framed. The trial commenced and the statement. Of numbers of witnesses for the prosecution were recorded. Two Independent witnesses, namely. Med Ram (PW 2) and Shyam Lal (PW 3) resiled from their police statements. They were declared hostile and put to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. They stated that they had not visited the village Barhai where the alleged occurrence had taken place and they had been made witnesses b the appellant on account of friendship. Besides, two girls, namely, Kumari Nirmala Devi (PW 10) and Kumari Bimla Devi (PW 11) both nieces of the appellant, were examined, though once left out by the prosecution as having been won over by the accused party. 4. In addition, the prosecution had the report of Ballastic Expert (Ex. PW 13/A to the effect that the gun had been used and the pellets had been fired through it. It was also opined that the holes in the drum cold have been caused by the pellets shot through the gun. 5. 4. In addition, the prosecution had the report of Ballastic Expert (Ex. PW 13/A to the effect that the gun had been used and the pellets had been fired through it. It was also opined that the holes in the drum cold have been caused by the pellets shot through the gun. 5. While acquitting the accuse, the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant had not only given a false report to the police but out no false witnesses, namely, Med Ram (PW 2) and Shyam Lal (PW 3) and compelled Kumari Nirmala Devi (PW 10) and Kumari Bimla Devi (PW 11) not only to appear as witnesses for him but also made them to improve their versions while appearing as witnesses in the court. On these grounds the trial Court concluded that the appellant levelled false charge of attempt to murder against the accused and for this purpose he made a false statement to the police and also in the Court. The appellant even procured Med Ram (PW 2), Shyam Lal (PW 3) Nirmala Devi (P. W. 10 and Bimla Devi (PW 11) to made false statements in his favour. The circumstances the court concluded, justified filing of a complaint against the appellant under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code in the interest of justice 6 The question for determination in this case is whether the action of the trial Court, m these circumstances, can be considered to be Justified In order to examine this question, it is relevant to reproduce section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: "340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.—(I) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (I) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that 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 such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary — (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing ; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction ; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate ; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate". 7. The language of section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that it is discretionary for the Court to make a preliminary inquiry and whether to do so, would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. What is necessary is that the Court must be of the opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence mentioned in this section. If no such preliminary inquiry is held to be necessary, the Court should record a finding to that effect as to why such an inquiry was not necessary. 8. Looking to the facts of this case, the perusal of the judgment indicates that such a conclusion was not possible in view of the evidence on the record. Simply because certain witnesses have turned hostile and some others improved their statements, it does not necessarily give rise to the conclusion that they were procured by the appellant and that they were speaking the truth by resiling from their earlier statements. It is not necessary that a witness who has resiled from his police statement will speak the truth when he appears before a court of law. It is not necessary that a witness who has resiled from his police statement will speak the truth when he appears before a court of law. Rather, if a witness who alleges himself to be the friend of the accused and comes forward to state in his favour before the police and then resiles from his statement when under examination in a court of law, throws serious doubt as to the veracity of his statement and his credit as a witness. It will not be an exaggeration to say that such a witness can be appropriately classified to be one as having been won over by the other party. Other witnesses, namely, the nieces of the appellant, cannot be said to have appeared due to the pressure of the appellant and simply because certain improvements have been made by these young girls after a long lapse of time, it cannot be said that they are not worthy of credence. 9. Even if the statements of these witnesses are kept aside, the trial Judge had before him the scientific evidence which established the use of the gun in this incident. The reason given for discarding this part of the evidence cannot be considered to have sound basis. The observations made by the trial Court in para 16 of the judgment indicate that the court was itself in doubt in this case and further, no clearcut finding has been given for making out a case for filing a complaint against the appellant in this case:— "A look at the complaint further indicates that there is material variation in the conclusions arrived at by the court while deciding to prosecute the appellant and the complaint ultimately filed in the court It is noticeable in this case that the appellant had reported the matter to the police. The police, after investigation, also came to the conclusion that the information supplied by the appellant was correct and on the basis of the investigation, a challan was filed in the court where charge was also framed against the accused. There have been number of steps where the authenticity of the version of the appellant could be seen and tested. Simply because certain witnesses have turned hostile, it cannot be said that the version given by the appellant was utterly false." 10. There have been number of steps where the authenticity of the version of the appellant could be seen and tested. Simply because certain witnesses have turned hostile, it cannot be said that the version given by the appellant was utterly false." 10. Offences relating to purgery are definitely serious and the courts are expected to be zealous in eradicating such evils which have started corroding our judicial system. However, care has to be taken to see that any zealousness in this regard may not hamper the initiative genuinely and honestly taken by anyone in informing matters to the police or giving versions in a court of law. There are usually variations in the statements of witnesses and if the provisions of law are applied in every such case, a situation may come when number of witnesses may involve themselves in prosecutions for purgery. To start prosecutions for purgery too readily and too frequently on the basis of the doubtful statements may have such a result, as aforesaid. Strictly speaking, there may not be any requirement to hear the person before ordering his prosecution by a court of law, but expediency, canons of justice and fair-play require that before launching any prosecution, it is necessary to give him a chance of hearing and seek his explanation. This was also a case where the appellant should have been heard by the trial Court. 11. The conclusion of the examination of this matter in depth and detail is that there is merit in the complaint of the appellant. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The proceedings pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Simla, in consequence of the complaint dated 6-5-1987 by the Additional Sessions Judge (2), Simla, for offence under section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of offence under section 21.1 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby quashed. The bail bond and surety bond, if any, executed by the accused at any stage of the trial of this case are hereby discharged. Appeal allowed.-