ORDER : 1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge FTSC (POCSO) Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No. 13/2020 (State Vs. Vinod Chouhan) whereby an application moved by the petitioner/State under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 2. Facts of the present case are that the respondent/accused was being prosecuted for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 in connection with Crime No. 24/2023 registered at Police Station-City Kotwali, District Korba (C.G.). 3. It appears that the victim and her mother were examined as witnesses before the court below and they deposed contradictory statements in the judicial proceeding. Therefore, the Special Public Prosecutor moved an application before the court below to take cognizance of the matter under Sections 340 and 344 of Cr.P.C. against the victim and her mother. Learned trial court after hearing the Special Public Prosecutor vide order dated 22.11.2022 placing reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarsang Nathji Versus Hardik Karshadbhai Patel & others, (2017) 1 SCC 113 rejected the application imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the ground that, the mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of IPC. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the victim and her mother made contradictory statements under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. He would further submit that Section 340 of Cr.P.C. provides that an inquiry should be conducted by the concerned court according to the provisions of Section 195 of the IPC. He would also submit that the court below rejected the application without conducting any preliminary inquiry. In support of his argument, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab v. Jasbir Singh passed in Criminal Appeal No. 335/2020 whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed the following questions: “(i) Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court? (ii) What is the scope and ambit of such preliminary inquiry?” 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court answered the first question in the negative and it was further held that the answer to the second question revolves around the constitutional bench judgment rendered in the matter of Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah where it was observed that before filing the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195 (i)(b). 6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned, provisions of the law and the aforesaid judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 7. In the present case, the respondent/accused was being tried for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The statement under Sections 161 and 164 was recorded and during the judicial proceedings the victim and her mother deviated from their statements recorded earlier and there were certain contradictions, therefore, an application was moved by the Special Public Prosecutor under Sections 340 and 344 of Cr.P.C. for taking action against them. 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Amarsang Nathji (supra) in para 6 has observed that “if a person has made contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding, mere this fact is not by itself always sufficient to justify the prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of IPC; but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings.” The relevant para 6 of the aforementioned judgment is reproduced herein below: “The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”); but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred in Section 340(1) of the CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. and Another v. Union of India). The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.” 9. From a perusal of the application moved by the Special Public Prosecutor before the court below, it appears that the victim refused to identify the accused in the judicial proceeding. It is further stated that in the statement recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C., the victim had made serious allegations with regard to the commission of alleged offences against the accused and therefore a prayer was made to take cognizance against the accused therein according to the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. In the application, it is nowhere stated that the victim or her mother intentionally gave a false statement before the court below. 10. In the matter of Jasbir Singh (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court framed two issues as discussed above and answered them in negative relying on the judgment passed by the constitutional bench in the matter of Iqbal Singh Marwah Versus Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370 . It was observed therein thus:- “23. In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice." This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(i)(b). Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(i)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice.(See also R.S. Sujatha V. State of Karnataka, (2011) 5 SCC 689 .)” In the matter of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the course of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. may be adopted only if the interest of justice requires it and not in every case. It has also been observed that the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. 11. In the present case, the learned court below has recorded a finding that there is no need to hold an enquiry as prima facie there is no case made out against the victim and her mother. Therefore, the learned court below rejected the application. 12. In the matter of Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Versus Union of India & Ors, (2013) 15 SCC 539 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while examining the scope of Sections 195(b)(i) and 340 of Cr.P.C. in para 8 and 9 held as under: 8. In this context, reference may be made of Section 340 under Chapter XXVI of the Cr.P.C., under the heading of “Provisions as to Offences Affecting the Administration of Justice”. This Chapter deals with offences committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the court, or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in the court and enables the court to make a complaint in respect of such offences if that court is of the view that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence. Clause (b) of Section 195 (1) Cr.P.C. authorises such court to examine prima facie as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after having recorded a finding to that effect as contemplated under Section 340 (1) Cr.P.C. In such a case, the question remains as to whether a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offences and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take any action. Thus, before lodging a complaint, the condition precedent for the court to be satisfied are that material so produced before the court makes out a prima facie case for a complaint and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to have prosecution under Section 193 IPC. (Vide: Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warrier & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 290; and K.T.M.S. Mohd. & Anr. v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1831 ). 9. In the case of Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr., AIR 1971 SC 1367 , this Court held: “7. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge.” 13. Taking into consideration the contents of the application moved by the Special Public Prosecutor before the learned court below, the settled law rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases and the findings recorded by the learned court below, in the opinion of this court there is no infirmity or error of law in the order passed by the learned court below. Accordingly, the present petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.