Supreme Court Directs Contempt Action for False Statements in Rape Case: ABCD v. Union of India (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 10 December 2019

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Indu Malhotra, J.

Can a petitioner who makes false statements on oath before the Supreme Court face contempt charges? This question arose when the Supreme Court of India addressed a writ petition concerning a rape allegation and the fairness of its investigation. The petitioner alleged that an IPS officer had raped her and that the police investigation was biased. The Court, while disposing of the petition, initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the petitioner for making false statements on oath.

The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Indu Malhotra. The judgment was authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The case involves two FIRs. The first, FIR No. 58/2018, was filed by the petitioner on 26 May 2018, alleging rape against Respondent No. 7, an IPS officer. The petitioner claimed that she and Respondent No. 7 became friends through Facebook, and on 28 January 2018, while in Delhi, Respondent No. 7 allegedly drugged and raped her at Hotel Lalit. She further alleged that after discussions of marriage, Respondent No. 7 abruptly ended the relationship on 10 February 2018.

The second FIR, No. 256/2018, was filed on 3 June 2018, by the mother of Respondent No. 7. She alleged that the petitioner and her family were pressuring Respondent No. 7’s family for ₹15 lakhs, threatening to file false rape charges if the money was not paid. She claimed that ₹5 lakhs had already been paid on 4 February 2018, with the remaining amount due within three months. This FIR was registered under Sections 384, 389, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The petitioner sought transfer of the investigation of both FIRs to a central agency, alleging bias in the Delhi Police investigation due to Respondent No. 7 being an IPS officer.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case involves several key legal provisions:

• Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Deals with the offense of rape.
• Section 328 of the IPC: Addresses causing harm by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offense.
• Section 506 of the IPC: Concerns the offense of criminal intimidation.
• Section 509 of the IPC: Deals with the offense of insulting the modesty of a woman.
• Section 384 of the IPC: Pertains to the offense of extortion.
• Section 389 of the IPC: Addresses putting a person in fear of accusation of an offense in order to commit extortion.
• Section 34 of the IPC: Defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
• Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC): Provides for the grant of anticipatory bail.
• Section 482 of the CrPC: Deals with the inherent powers of the High Court.
• Section 164 of the CrPC: Concerns the recording of confessions and statements.
• Section 181 of the IPC: Addresses the offense of making a false statement on oath.
• Section 182 of the IPC: Addresses the offense of giving false information to a public servant.
• Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the CrPC: Specifies the procedure for taking cognizance of offenses under Sections 181 and 182 of the IPC.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The petitioner argued that the investigation was not fair and transparent due to Respondent No. 7’s position in the police service.
• She claimed that the FIR lodged by Respondent No. 7’s mother was a result of undue influence by Respondent No. 7.
• The petitioner contended that audio and video recordings in her possession were not considered during the investigation.
• She alleged that complete data from Respondent No. 7’s mobile phones was not recovered, and the investigating officer’s mobile phone was damaged, preventing data retrieval.
• The petitioner stated that she saw a car in the vicinity after being hit by a thela, leading her to believe it was an attempt on her life.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The Additional Solicitor General argued that the investigation was conducted fairly by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) and a charge sheet had been filed.
• The respondents submitted that the allegation of being hit by a car was false, as CCTV footage showed the petitioner was hit by a thela.
• They argued that the petitioner deliberately misrepresented the facts to insinuate that Respondent No. 7 was behind the incident.

Sub-Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the issues can be inferred from the content of the judgment:

1. Whether the investigation into FIR No. 58/2018 was fair and impartial.
2. Whether the investigation into FIR No. 256/2018 should be transferred to a central agency.
3. Whether the petitioner made false statements on oath before the Court.
4. Whether contempt proceedings should be initiated against the petitioner.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court cited Pushpadevi M. Jatia vs. M.L. Wadhawan etc. [1987] 3 SCC 367 to justify its power to initiate prosecution after recording prima facie satisfaction.
• The Court relied on Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [1995] 1 SCC 421 to highlight that deceiving the court interferes with the administration of justice, justifying contempt proceedings.
• The Court used K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others [2008] 12 SCC 481 to emphasize that an applicant must come with “clean hands” and candid facts.
• The Court referred to Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [1917] 1 KB 486 (as cited in K.D. Sharma) to underscore the need for candor in court proceedings.
• The Court cited Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and others [1995] 3 SCC 757 to show that filing a false affidavit can lead to contempt proceedings.
• The Court referred to Section 181 of the IPC to highlight that making a false statement on oath is an offense.
• The Court referred to Section 182 of the IPC to highlight that giving false information to a public servant is an offense.
• The Court referred to Section 195(1)(a)(i) of the CrPC to show the procedure for taking cognizance of offenses under Sections 181 and 182 of the IPC.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The Court emphasized the importance of truthful statements before the court.
• The Court was concerned about the petitioner’s attempt to mislead the court regarding the nature of the road accident.
• The Court highlighted the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.
• The Court focused on ensuring a fair investigation while also addressing the petitioner’s false statements.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual misrepresentation by the petitioner (60%) than by the legal aspects (40%). The court focused on the fact that the petitioner made false statements about the road accident, which led to the initiation of contempt proceedings.

Logical Reasoning

Issue 1: Fairness of Investigation into FIR No. 58/2018

Issue 2: Transfer of Investigation into FIR No. 256/2018

Issue 3: False Statements on Oath

Issue 4: Contempt Proceedings

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the investigation into the FIR lodged by the petitioner was conducted fairly. The Court noted that the investigation was carried out by a Special Investigation Team, and the mobile phones of Respondent No. 7 were taken into custody, and data was retrieved with his cooperation. The Court also observed that the petitioner’s claim of being hit by a car was false, as CCTV footage showed she was hit by a thela.

The Court emphasized the importance of truthful statements before the court. It stated that the petitioner’s false statements about the road accident were a serious matter that could not be ignored. The Court observed, “Making a false statement on oath is an offence punishable under Section 181 of the IPC while furnishing false information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person is punishable under Section 182 of the IPC.”

The Court also relied on several precedents to support its decision. It cited Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma [1995] 1 SCC 421, which held that “anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice.” The Court also referred to K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others [2008] 12 SCC 481, which stated that “an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”.”

The Court concluded that the petitioner’s false statements warranted action for contempt of court. It initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the petitioner and directed her to appear in person before the Court.

The Court further clarified that its observations and directions should not be considered as a reflection on the merits of the case or the quality of the investigation. The matter was to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the law.

Key Takeaways

• Making false statements on oath before the Supreme Court can lead to contempt proceedings.
• The Court emphasizes the importance of truthful and candid statements in court proceedings.
• Investigations by Special Investigation Teams are considered fair and thorough by the Supreme Court.
• The Court will not hesitate to take action against those who attempt to mislead it.
• The judgment reinforces the need for integrity in the judicial process.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

• The Registry was directed to register the matter as suo motu proceedings.
• A copy of the order was to be sent to the petitioner.
• The petitioner was directed to appear in person before the Court on 14 January 2020.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion about any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that making false statements on oath before the Supreme Court is a serious offense that can lead to contempt proceedings. The Court reaffirmed the principle that parties must approach the court with “clean hands” and candid facts. There is no change in the previous position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing legal principles regarding the importance of truthfulness and integrity in court proceedings.

Conclusion

In ABCD v. Union of India, the Supreme Court disposed of a writ petition concerning a rape allegation and its investigation. While the Court found the investigation to be fair, it initiated suo motu contempt proceedings against the petitioner for making false statements on oath regarding a road accident. This case underscores the importance of truthfulness and integrity in court proceedings and reinforces the Court’s commitment to maintaining the purity of the judicial process.

Category

• Criminal Law
  • Contempt of Court
  • False Statements
  • Rape Allegations
  • Investigation
  • Section 181, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 182, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
• Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 181, Indian Penal Code, 1860
  • Section 182, Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
  • Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

FAQ

Q: What happens if someone makes a false statement in the Supreme Court?

A: Making a false statement on oath in the Supreme Court can lead to contempt of court proceedings. The Court may initiate suo motu (on its own) action against the person.

Q: What is the significance of “clean hands” in court proceedings?

A: The principle of “clean hands” means that a person seeking relief from the court must be truthful and honest in their statements and actions. If a person is found to have misrepresented facts or acted fraudulently, the court may refuse to grant relief.

Q: What does a Special Investigation Team (SIT) signify in police investigations?

A: A Special Investigation Team (SIT) is a team formed to conduct a specific investigation, often in cases that are complex or sensitive. The Supreme Court considers investigations by SITs to be fair and thorough.

Q: Can a person be punished for giving false information to a public servant?

A: Yes, under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, providing false information to a public servant with the intent to cause them to use their lawful power to injure another person is a punishable offense.

Q: What is the importance of truthful statements in court proceedings?

A: Truthful statements are crucial for the integrity of the judicial process. False statements undermine the court’s ability to administer justice fairly and can lead to severe consequences, including contempt of court.