JUDGMENT : T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. This appeal is filed under section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr. P.C.) by the appellant, aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.M.C. No.1647/2011 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Tract Court No.I, Thrissur holding the view that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. will have to be initiated against the appellant for having committed an offence under Section 193 I.P.C. 2. The complainant in the Crl.M.C. is the second respondent herein. This was heard along with Crl. M.P. No. 3217/2011 filed by the learned counsel for the accused in the case, which was dismissed. The appeal is confined only to the order in Crl. M.C. No.1647/2011. 3. We heard Shri T.A. Shaji, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor Shri A. Suresan appearing for the first respondent State and Shri Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 4. The appellant is functioning as Associate Professor in the Department of Forensic Medicine, Medical College, Thrissur. The Police had charge-sheeted a case which was tried as S.C. No.345/2011 by the same court wherein the appellant was examined as D.W.1 by the defence. The incident which led to the Sessions trial is one in which a girl lost her life in tragic circumstances for which a case was charged under Sections 302, 376, 394 r/w 397 and 441 I.P.C. against the accused in the case, one Shri Govindaswamy. P.W.64 in the said case is Dr. Sherly Vasu through whom Ext.P69 postmortem certificate was proved by the prosecution. The appellant was examined in the main case on 10.10.2011 and Crl.M.C. No.1647/2011 was filed on 12.10.2011 by the second respondent, viz. a social organization alleging that while being examined as defence witness, the appellant had given false evidence intentionally. Based on the said complaint, an enquiry was conducted by the learned Judge and Exts.C1 and C2 were marked. 5. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel Shri. T.A. Shaji appearing for the appellant submitted that the allegation of giving false evidence is not correct. It is submitted that the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased was held on 7.2.2011 at 7.05 a.m. by a team of Doctors including the appellant. The same was in the presence of Dr. Sherly Vasu who was the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, but her presence was only partial. It is submitted that the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased was held on 7.2.2011 at 7.05 a.m. by a team of Doctors including the appellant. The same was in the presence of Dr. Sherly Vasu who was the Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine, but her presence was only partial. It was the appellant who had taken various steps in the matter along with Dr. Rajendraprasad. But Dr. Sherly Vasu prepared a detailed postmortem report relying upon the postmortem notes prepared by the appellant and Dr. Rajendraprasad. The said certificate was produced by her to make it appear that it was she who conducted autopsy along with the team of Doctors including the appellant. Learned Senior Counsel further emphasised the fact that there is no difference in the findings recorded in the postmortem notes and in the preparation of postmortem certificate by Dr. Sherly Vasu. It is therefore submitted that the very premise under which the court below proceeded, is not correct. It is submitted that there is no cause for the second respondent to file the complaint also. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: Moideen Shah v. Dr. Joseph Mathew (2007 (3) KHC 654 Ker.), N. Natarajan v. B.K. Subbarao (2003 KHC 806 - SC = (2003) 2 SCC 76 )), Abdul Gani Bhat v. Chairman, Islamia College (2011 (1) KHC 696 SC), R.L. Khatway v. State of Bihar (2007 KHC 6109- Patna) and Rakesh Pathak v. State of U.P. (2009 KHC 5490 - All.H.C.). 6. Shri A. Suresan, learned Special Public Prosecutor supported the order passed by the trial court. It is submitted that the court has found that there is real ground to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the appellant has intentionally deposed falsehood before the trial court while being examined as D.W.1. He was recalled and re-examined as a court witness also. It is submitted, by referring to the materials explained in the judgment by the trial court also, that it is actually P.W.64, Dr. Sherly Vasu who conducted the postmortem along with the team of doctors including the appellant and it is not the other way. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also referred to various procedures fixed by the Department to contend that it is only the Head of the Department who can conduct the postmortem. Sherly Vasu who conducted the postmortem along with the team of doctors including the appellant and it is not the other way. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also referred to various procedures fixed by the Department to contend that it is only the Head of the Department who can conduct the postmortem. Our attention was invited to the relevant paragraphs of the impugned order wherein such aspects have been considered by the learned Judge. It is therefore submitted that the view taken by the court below is correct. 7. Learned counsel for the second respondent, Shri Kaleeswaram Raj submitted that the second respondent has locus-standi to file the Crl.M.C. and the said right has been upheld by the Apex Court also. He relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and others { (2002) 1 SCC 253 }, N. Natarajan v. B.K. Subbarao (2003 KHC 806 - SC = (2003) 2 SCC 76 ) and Mishrilal and others v. State of M.P. and others { (2005) 10 SCC 701 } in support of his arguments. It is submitted that giving false evidence invites filing of a complaint by court and under Section 340 Cr.P.C. the court is not deciding the guilt or innocence of the party against whom proceedings are to be taken before the Magistrate and it only considers whether it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence affecting the administration of justice. Therefore, it is submitted that the sufficiency or otherwise of the material will not come up for consideration at that stage and going by the details provided in the order passed by the learned Judge it is submitted that the order does not suffer from any infirmity. It is also submitted that the present appeal was filed by the appellant even before the complaint was filed and could not have been entertained. 8. We find from the proceedings of this Court that when the appeal came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court on 6.12.2011, a question was raised by the learned Director General of Prosecutions about the maintainability of the appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C., for the reason that a complaint has not been filed so far, though under the impugned order a complaint has been ordered to be filed. The matter was adjourned at the instance of the learned counsel for the appellant to ascertain whether a complaint has already been filed or not. Again the matter came up on 10.1.2012 and it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appeal is maintainable inasmuch as a complaint has been filed by the Court in pursuance of the impugned directions in the judgment. Accordingly, the Bench passed an order admitting the appeal. In that view of the matter, we are also of opinion that the appeal is maintainable. 9. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Pritish's case { (2002) 1 SCC 253 } has gone into the various aspects covered by Sections 340 and 341 Cr.P.C. We will just refer to the same only to reiterate the scope of Section 340 and the enquiry conducted by the court herein. It was laid down by the Apex Court as follows: (a) In order to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence, the court is empowered to hold a preliminary enquiry. But it is not peremptory that such a preliminary enquiry should be held; (b) Even when the court forms such an opinion it is not mandatory that a court should make a complaint and sub-section (1) has conferred power on the court to do so and it does not mean that as a matter of course, the court should make a complaint; (c) Once the court decides to do so, then the court should make a finding to the effect that on the fact situation it is expedient in the interest of justice that the offence should be further probed into; (d) If the court finds it necessary to conduct a preliminary inquiry to reach such a finding, it is always open to the court to do so, though absence of any such preliminary inquiry would not vitiate a finding reached by the court regarding its opinion; (e) The preliminary enquiry contemplated in the sub-section is not for finding whether any particular person is guilty or not. It is only to decide whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed; (f) The scope of enquiry under Section 340 is confined to see whether the court could then decide on the materials available that the matter requires enquiry by a criminal court and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have it inquired into; and (g) Once the prosecution proceedings commence the person against whom the accusation is made has a legal right to be heard." 10. In the light of this legal position, we will examine the contentions. A reading of the order passed by the court below shows that after receipt of Crl.M.C. No. 1647/2011 an enquiry was conducted and Exts.C1 and C2 were marked. Since Crl.M.P. No. 3217/2011 was filed by the learned counsel for the accused, arraying Dr. Sherly Vasu as respondent, the said petition was also heard along with the Crl.M.C. Learned Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for the accused in the main case and the learned counsel for the appellant have been heard in the matter. The order further shows that during the preliminary enquiry, the court has examined various materials by way of Ext.P70 C.D. Produced and marked in the main case, containing 129 photographs of the autopsy and the details have been discussed elaborately. The court has also verified elaborately Ext.C1 records, which contains the requisition for postmortem of the deceased prepared by P.W.81 Sasidharan in Form No.102. The entries therein have been verified to find out whether the postmortem duty was assigned to Dr. Sherly Vasu or to the appellant. Reference was made to the deposition of the appellant in the cross examination and the version given by him that name of Dr. Sherly Vasu was added subsequently. It was found by the learned Judge on perusal of the documents that the evidence of the appellant regarding the same is false and unbelievable. 11. Further down in the order, the details of his cross examination have also been analysed to find out whether the appellant alone has conducted the autopsy. It was noted that no order has been produced by him that he and Dr. Rajendraprasad alone were authorised to conduct the postmortem. 11. Further down in the order, the details of his cross examination have also been analysed to find out whether the appellant alone has conducted the autopsy. It was noted that no order has been produced by him that he and Dr. Rajendraprasad alone were authorised to conduct the postmortem. Reference was made of the relevant Government Orders which were relied on to by the learned Public Prosecutor to show that the Professor and Police Surgeon alone can do the medico legal cases and all other doctors shall assist the Police Surgeon. It was also noted by the learned Judge that while cross examining P.W.64, no single question was put to the said witness doubting the genuineness of Ext.P69 postmortem report. On the other hand, most of the questions put were admitting the fact that postmortem was conducted by Dr. Sherly Vasu. Then, the further details with regard to the conduct of postmortem have been analysed with reference to the deposition in cross examination of the appellant and from his deposition as a court witness. Reference is made therein to the various entries in Exts.C1 and C2. Ext.C1 is the original file relating to the postmortem of the deceased girl and Ext.C2 is the register of postmortem kept in the Medical College Hospital, Thrissur. Finally, it was observed that going by the details, the evidence of the appellant to the effect that Dr. Sherly Vasu did not conduct the postmortem is false and intentionally with some ulterior motives. The court finally concluded that in the light of the acceptance of evidence of P.W.64 in the main case, that it is expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint in writing in respect of the alleged offence committed by the appellant. 12. Learned Senior Counsel Shri T.A. Shaji elaborately made submissions on the merits and he has also produced a chart for our perusal also to show that on a comparison of the injuries in the certificate available in the court, viz. Ext.P69 and the certificate prepared by the appellant are concerned, it can be seen that practically there is no variation. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the appellant that Dr. Sherly Vasu was not there, but actually the postmortem was conducted by the appellant and not by Dr. Sherly Vasu who was present there. Ext.P69 and the certificate prepared by the appellant are concerned, it can be seen that practically there is no variation. It is also submitted that it is not the case of the appellant that Dr. Sherly Vasu was not there, but actually the postmortem was conducted by the appellant and not by Dr. Sherly Vasu who was present there. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that when the certificates tally each other, there is no reason for directing to prosecute the appellant. What he has stated is perfectly true and this alone can be found even if the matter is examined during trial. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant who had a very good track record, need not be unnecessarily put to harassment by facing the trial. 13. Learned Senior Counsel relied upon a decision of this Court in Moideen Shah v. Dr. Joseph Mathew (2007 (3) KHC 654 = 2007 (4) KLT 315 ) to contend that it is trite law that every incorrect statement or mis-statement made by a party in the course of the judicial proceedings, however, objectionable, cannot and shall not persuade the courts to invoke the powers under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. 14. N. Natarajan's case (2003 KHC 806 - SC) is a decision by the Apex Court which was relied upon to contend that a busy body or interloper cannot be allowed or not to maintain proceedings under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 15. Abdul Gani Bhat's case (2011 (1) KHC 696 - SC) is a decision by the Apex Court wherein also it has been held that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. need not be directed merely because some of the statements filed before the court is said to be false. 16. As we have already observed, going by the decision of the Apex Court in Pritish's case { (2002) 1 SCC 253 } the court will have to satisfy on all facts that it is expedient in the interest of justice that the offence should be further probed into. The scope of the enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not to find out whether somebody is guilty or not. Therefore, the question to be considered is very limited at that stage. Even though Shri T.A. Shaji, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Crl. The scope of the enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not to find out whether somebody is guilty or not. Therefore, the question to be considered is very limited at that stage. Even though Shri T.A. Shaji, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Crl. M.C. filed by a third party could not have been entertained at all, we are of the view that on the principles stated by the Apex Court in N. Natarajan's case { (2003) 2 SCC 76 } in para 8, it can be seen that the said contention cannot be accepted. Therein, the Apex Court held as follows: "It is well settled that in criminal law that a complaint can be lodged by anyone who has become aware of a crime having been committed and thereby set the law into motion. In respect of offences adverted to in Section 195, Cr.P.C. there is a restriction that the same cannot be entertained unless a complaint is made by a Court because the offence is stated to have been committed in relation to the proceedings in that Court Section 340, Cr. P.C. is invoked to get over the bar imposed under Section 195, Cr.P.C. In ordinary crimes not adverted to under Section 195, Cr. P.C., if in respect of any offence, law can be set into motion by any citizen of this country, we fail to see how any citizen of this country cannot approach even under Section 340, Cr. P.C. For that matter, the wordings of Section 340, Cr. P.C. are significant. The Court will have to act in the interest of justice on a complaint or otherwise. Assuming that the complaint may have to be made at the instance of a party having an interest in the matter, still the Court can take action in the matter otherwise than on a complaint, that is, when it has received information as to a crime having been committed covered by the said provision. Therefore, it is wholly unnecessary to examine this aspect of the matter. We proceed on the basis that the respondent has locus standi to present the complaint before the Designated Judge." Therefore, as far as the locus standi of the second respondent is concerned, we are of the view that the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel will have to fail. 17. We proceed on the basis that the respondent has locus standi to present the complaint before the Designated Judge." Therefore, as far as the locus standi of the second respondent is concerned, we are of the view that the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel will have to fail. 17. The point therefore turns on the question whether the court was right in directing filing of a complaint. Shri T.A. Shaji, learned Senior Counsel relied upon various materials in the case to show that since there is no practical difference between the two certificates, one prepared by Dr. Sherly Vasu and the other prepared by the appellant, he has been falsely implicated in the matter. We find, on a reference to the order, that the court below considered certain aspects based on which a further probe is justified. First one is that he had deposed that Dr. Sherly Vasu did not conduct the postmortem. In that context, the learned Judge prima facie observed that the said stand taken by the appellant is intentionally, with some ulterior motives. Secondly, the court has verified the various notings in Exts.C1 and C2 also and observed that the stand taken by the appellant that Dr. Sherly Vasu did not conduct postmortem is not correct. Therefore, these are the main aspects which have prompted the court to probe into the matter further. The court was of the view that since in the main case the evidence of P.W.64 has been accepted apart from Ext.P69 postmortem report, it is expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint in writing. Evidently, the enquiry at this stage is not to find out whether the appellant is guilty or not. Therefore, even though it is vehemently argued by Shri T.A. Shaji that the order cannot be supported, we are of the view that the court has only analysed various aspects by way of preliminary enquiry alone and ultimately formed an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to file a complaint. The appellant can take up all such defence in the subsequent stages after the filing of the complaint. 18. In that view of the matter, at this stage if we enter a finding on the merits either way, it will prejudice the rights of the parties. The appellant can take up all such defence in the subsequent stages after the filing of the complaint. 18. In that view of the matter, at this stage if we enter a finding on the merits either way, it will prejudice the rights of the parties. Therefore, we refrain from referring to the various materials referred to by both sides on the merits of the matter. 19. Since the finding of the court below is that it is expedient in the light of the various observations made in the judgment which we have already referred to, that the matter will have to be probed and in the light of the fact that these materials were before the court in the main case itself and have been discussed in the main judgment also, we are of the view that at this stage it may not be proper for this Court to hold that the direction is uncalled for and hence we find no merit in the appeal. The judgment in the main case in S.C. No.345/2011 has been confirmed in D.S.R. No.3/2011 and connected Criminal appeal No.149/2012 and Crl.M.C. No.125/2012 filed by the appellant to expunge the remarks has also been dismissed by a common judgment dated 17/12/2013. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal. No costs.