Case Note & Summary
The present appeal arises from a judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 07.03.2018, which directed initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against the appellant for alleged perjury in anticipatory bail applications filed in matrimonial proceedings. The appellant, Aarish Asgar Qureshi, was the applicant in those bail applications. The dispute originated from matrimonial discord between the appellant and his wife, Sana, leading to an FIR under various sections of the IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act. In the anticipatory bail applications before the Sessions Court and the High Court, the appellant made allegations that his wife was having an affair with one Waseem Shaikh and that she had been forced into marriage. The Sessions Court, by order dated 12.02.2018, rejected a complaint under Section 340 CrPC filed by the respondents, holding that the truthfulness of the statements could not be decided at that stage and the application was premature. However, the High Court, in a separate proceeding, found that the investigating officer's report dated 24.11.2017 indicated the allegations were false, and thus a prima facie case for perjury was made out. The appellant challenged this order, arguing that the investigation report was preliminary and did not conclusively establish falsity, and that the High Court's order was based on suppression of the Sessions Court's order. The Supreme Court examined the law under Section 340 CrPC, relying on precedents such as Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and Chandrapal Singh v. Maharaj Singh, which require a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, based on unimpeachable evidence, and that prosecution should not be ordered on inconclusive or doubtful material. The Court found that the High Court had not considered the Sessions Court's order, which had rejected the perjury complaint as premature, and that the investigating officer's report was not conclusive evidence of falsity. The Court held that the statements in the bail application were not shown to be deliberately false, and the High Court's order was set aside. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury Proceedings - Section 340 CrPC - Initiation of proceedings for perjury requires a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance, based on unimpeachable evidence, and it must be expedient in the interest of justice - The High Court's order was set aside as the statements in the anticipatory bail application were not found to be deliberately false based on conclusive material, and the Sessions Court had earlier rejected a similar application as premature (Paras 7-10). B) Criminal Procedure - Suppression of Proceedings - Unclean Hands - The respondents suppressed the Sessions Court order dated 12.02.2018 which had rejected the perjury application as premature - This suppression, coupled with the lack of a prima facie case, warranted setting aside the impugned order (Paras 5, 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC for alleged perjury based on statements made in anticipatory bail applications, and whether the High Court's order suffered from suppression of material facts and lack of prima facie case of deliberate falsehood.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the High Court dated 07.03.2018, and quashed the direction to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC
- perjury
- deliberate falsehood
- prima facie case
- expediency in interest of justice
- suppression of proceedings
- unclean hands
