Supreme Court Sets Aside Perjury Proceedings in Matrimonial Dispute: Aarish Asgar Qureshi vs. Fareed Ahmed Qureshi & Anr. (26 February 2019)

Date of the Judgment: 26 February 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 156

Judges: R.F. Nariman, J., Vineet Saran, J.

Can a court initiate perjury proceedings based solely on contradictory statements made in an anticipatory bail application? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving a matrimonial dispute. The Court clarified that perjury proceedings should not be initiated lightly and require more than just contradictory statements. The bench, comprising Justices R.F. Nariman and Vineet Saran, delivered the judgment, with Justice Nariman authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The case originated from a matrimonial dispute where the appellant, Aarish Asgar Qureshi, and his family members were accused of various offenses, including dowry harassment and sexual assault. In their anticipatory bail applications, they made certain statements regarding the conduct of the complainant’s daughter, Sana, alleging that she was having an affair and that her parents were aware of it. Specifically, they claimed that on 29th October 2016, the appellant found Sana in a compromising position with another man, Waseem Shaikh, and that her parents were aware of this relationship before the marriage but forced Sana to marry the appellant.

The Sessions Court initially refused to initiate perjury proceedings, stating that the truthfulness of the statements was yet to be determined. However, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, based on a preliminary investigation report, found that the statements in the anticipatory bail application were false and initiated perjury proceedings against the appellant.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Court refused to initiate perjury proceedings, stating that the allegations made by the accused persons were yet to be proved in the case filed by the victim. The Sessions Court held that merely on the basis of contradictory statements, the accused cannot be punished. The High Court, however, based on a preliminary investigation report which found the allegations to be false, and the repetition of these allegations in a previous order where anticipatory bail was granted, initiated perjury proceedings against the appellant under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.).

Legal Framework

The core legal provisions at play in this case are Section 340 and Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. deals with the procedure for initiating an inquiry into offenses mentioned in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., which includes offenses such as giving false evidence or fabricating false evidence. Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. states that no court shall take cognizance of any offense punishable under Sections 193 to 196 (including perjury) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), when such offense is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court.

The Supreme Court has clarified that the initiation of perjury proceedings should be done cautiously. As the court in Chajoo Ram vs. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774, stated, “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.”

Further, in Chandrapal Singh and Others vs. Maharaj Singh and Another, (1982) 1 SCC 466, the Court observed that, “Falsity can be alleged when truth stands out glaringly and to the knowledge of the person who is making the false statement.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the investigating officer’s report was a preliminary report made two days after the FIR, without any conclusive findings on the falsity of the statements made in the anticipatory bail application.
• The appellant contended that the High Court order of 30.11.2017 merely recorded the allegations as a submission by the appellant’s counsel, and the anticipatory bail was granted for entirely different reasons.
• The appellant emphasized that the respondents suppressed the Sessions Court order of 12.02.2018, which had refused to initiate perjury proceedings on the same statements.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent argued that the Sessions Court application was filed after the High Court application, and therefore, the Sessions Court order could not have been brought to the High Court’s notice.
• The respondent stated that the anticipatory bail applications before the Sessions Court and the High Court were separate and independent, allowing the High Court to arrive at its own conclusion regarding perjury.
• The respondent relied on several judgments to support the High Court’s decision to initiate perjury proceedings.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was correct in initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. based on the statements made in the anticipatory bail application.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Chajoo Ram vs. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774 – Supreme Court of India: This case was cited to emphasize that prosecution for perjury should not be initiated lightly and requires a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance.
• Chandrapal Singh and Others vs. Maharaj Singh and Another, (1982) 1 SCC 466 – Supreme Court of India: This case was used to highlight that falsity must be glaring and known to the person making the false statement.
• R.S. Sujatha vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 689 – Supreme Court of India: This case reiterated the principles laid down in the above two judgments, stating that perjury proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances with distinct evidence of the commission of an offense.

Cases Distinguished by the Court:

• K. Karunakaran vs. T.V. Eachara Warrier and Another, (1978) 1 SCC 18 – Supreme Court of India: The Court distinguished this case as it involved a situation where two views were possible, and the Court decided not to interfere with the High Court’s order.
• Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Another vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 51 – Supreme Court of India: This case was distinguished because it involved fabricated documents and a detailed inquiry by an independent committee, which was not the case here.
• State of Goa vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales alias Robert Vales, (2018) 11 SCC 659 – Supreme Court of India: The Court noted that in this case, the High Court had scrutinized evidence “minutely,” unlike the present case.
• Perumal vs. Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377 – Supreme Court of India: The Court acknowledged the High Court’s obligation to exercise jurisdiction under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. but found that the present case was not appropriate for such action.
• H.S. Bedi vs. National Highway Authority of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9524 – High Court of Delhi: This case was distinguished as it dealt with the general problem of false affidavits and was not applicable to the specific facts of the present case.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Procedure for initiating an inquiry into offenses mentioned in Section 195 of the Cr.P.C.
• Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.): Bar on taking cognizance of offenses like perjury without a complaint from the court.
• Sections 193 to 196 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): Offenses related to giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The court relied on Chajoo Ram vs. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774* to emphasize that perjury proceedings should not be initiated lightly.
• The court relied on Chandrapal Singh and Others vs. Maharaj Singh and Another, (1982) 1 SCC 466* to highlight that the falsity of a statement must be glaring and known to the person making it.
• The court relied on R.S. Sujatha vs. State of Karnataka and Others, (2011) 5 SCC 689* to reiterate that perjury proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances with distinct evidence.
• The court distinguished K. Karunakaran vs. T.V. Eachara Warrier and Another, (1978) 1 SCC 18* as it involved a situation where two views were possible.
• The court distinguished Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan University and Another vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 SCC OnLine SC 51* as it involved fabricated documents and a detailed inquiry.
• The court distinguished State of Goa vs. Jose Maria Albert Vales alias Robert Vales, (2018) 11 SCC 659* as the High Court had scrutinized evidence minutely.
• The court acknowledged the principle in Perumal vs. Janaki, (2014) 5 SCC 377* but found the present case inappropriate.
• The court distinguished H.S. Bedi vs. National Highway Authority of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 9524* as it dealt with general problems and not the specific facts.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order, holding that the initiation of perjury proceedings was not justified in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily concerned with the lack of concrete evidence to support the perjury charges. The Court emphasized that perjury proceedings should not be initiated based on mere contradictory statements, especially when those statements have not been tested against unimpeachable evidence. The Court highlighted the importance of a deliberate falsehood and the need for a reasonable foundation for the charge of perjury.

The Court also noted that the preliminary investigation report was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of perjury. The Court was also influenced by the fact that the High Court had granted anticipatory bail on grounds different from the allegedly false statements. The Supreme Court was also influenced by the fact that the Sessions Court had refused to initiate perjury proceedings on the same statements.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

Logical Reasoning:

The court’s reasoning was based on the principle that perjury proceedings should not be initiated lightly. The court emphasized that there must be a deliberate falsehood, and the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge. The court also noted that the statements made in the anticipatory bail application were not tested against unimpeachable evidence, and the preliminary investigation report was not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of perjury.

The court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them, finding that the facts did not support the initiation of perjury proceedings. The court’s decision was clear and accessible, emphasizing the need for caution and concrete evidence before initiating such proceedings.

The court quoted from Chajoo Ram vs. Radhey Shyam, stating, “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.”

The court also quoted from Chandrapal Singh and Others vs. Maharaj Singh and Another, stating, “Falsity can be alleged when truth stands out glaringly and to the knowledge of the person who is making the false statement.”

The court further stated, “There must be grounds of a nature higher than mere surmise or suspicion for initiating such proceedings. There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of perjury.”

Key Takeaways

• Perjury proceedings should not be initiated lightly and require more than just contradictory statements.
• A preliminary investigation report by a police officer, made shortly after the FIR, is not considered unimpeachable evidence for initiating perjury proceedings.
• Courts must be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge of perjury, and there must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offense.
• Statements made in anticipatory bail applications must be tested against unimpeachable evidence before initiating perjury proceedings.
• The court’s decision emphasizes the need for caution and concrete evidence before initiating such proceedings, protecting individuals from frivolous perjury charges.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court initiating perjury proceedings.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that perjury proceedings should not be initiated based on mere contradictory statements in an anticipatory bail application without conclusive evidence. The court reiterated the principles laid down in previous judgments, emphasizing the need for a deliberate falsehood and a reasonable foundation for the charge of perjury. This judgment reinforces the existing legal position that perjury proceedings should be initiated cautiously and only in cases where there is clear evidence of deliberate falsehood.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order initiating perjury proceedings against the appellant. The Court emphasized that perjury proceedings require more than just contradictory statements and must be based on unimpeachable evidence and a deliberate falsehood. The judgment underscores the importance of caution and due process in initiating such proceedings.