Summary
The Court set aside initiation of perjury proceedings concerning allegations in an anticipatory-bail application. A preliminary police report and the bail order did not provide unimpeachable evidence establishing deliberate material falsehood. The grant of bail rested on other reasons. The decision did not determine the truth of the underlying matrimonial allegations.
Issues
- Whether the material before the High Court justified a perjury complaint under Sections 340 and 195(1)(b) CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Sections 340 and 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Initiation required a reasonable foundation for deliberate material falsehood and expediency in the interests of justice; inconclusive material and mere contradictory allegations were insufficient here. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
Held
- Perjury prosecution should not follow merely from inaccuracies or rejection of a party’s assertions. There must be a prima facie deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance supported by a reasonable evidentiary foundation. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
- The early preliminary investigation report could not be treated as unimpeachable contrary evidence. Evidence had not yet been led, so the disputed assertions in the bail application had not been established as knowingly false. (¶¶ 10, 13)
- The bail order recorded the impugned assertions as a submission but granted relief principally on separate grounds. It did not establish that the appellant secured bail through the alleged falsehood. (¶ 10)
- The cited cases involving detailed scrutiny or fabricated records were distinguishable. Although the High Court had recorded an expediency finding, the material did not justify proceeding; the separate suppression argument was not accepted. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court order initiating proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) CrPC set aside.