Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 — Quashing of proceedings for perjury/false evidence — Family partition dispute — Contradictory deposition later clarified pursuant to High Court direction — Continuation of prosecution held abuse of process.
Where the petitioner, in a family partition suit concerning ancestral properties, initially denied in cross-examination execution/acceptance of a registered settlement deed in her favour, but subsequently, pursuant to directions issued by the High Court in a Civil Revision Petition, filed further chief-examination affidavit admitting execution of the gift deed and explaining circumstances under which earlier denial was made, the High Court held that mere inconsistent statements in civil proceedings, absent intentional falsehood and mens rea, do not constitute offences under Sections 191, 193 and 199 IPC. Continuation of criminal prosecution for perjury was held to be abuse of process of Court and proceedings were quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
— Paras 13 to 20.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 191 & 193 — Giving false evidence/perjury — Essential ingredients — Mens rea and intentional falsehood mandatory.
The Court held that for constituting offence of giving false evidence, prosecution must establish that accused, being legally bound to state truth, intentionally made false statement knowing it to be false or not believing it to be true. Mere denial of execution of a document in cross-examination, particularly when subsequently clarified and explained in further evidence, would not by itself amount to intentional fabrication of false evidence.
— Paras 10, 11 & 19.
Perjury prosecution arising out of civil proceedings — Court must examine whether falsehood was deliberate and material.
The High Court observed that criminal prosecution for perjury cannot be sustained merely because statements in civil proceedings are inconsistent or mutually destructive. The Court must examine whether alleged falsehood was deliberate, material and intended to secure wrongful gain or cause wrongful loss.
— Paras 11, 12 & 19.
IPC — Section 23 — Wrongful gain/wrongful loss — Ingredients absent where no dishonest intention established.
The Court held that allegations in complaint did not disclose dishonest intention or unlawful acquisition of property so as to attract Section 23 IPC. Petitioner had included even gifted property in plaint schedule seeking partition among all family members, thereby negativing allegation of wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
— Paras 12 & 19.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Order XVIII Rule 4 — Filing of further chief-examination affidavit pursuant to High Court directions — Evidentiary effect.
In earlier Civil Revision Petition, High Court directed plaintiff in partition suit either to admit gift deed by filing affidavit/further examination or permit summoning of Sub-Registrar records. Pursuant thereto, petitioner filed additional chief-affidavit admitting execution of gift deed and clarifying earlier denial. Such clarification was held relevant in determining absence of mens rea for offences relating to false evidence.
— Paras 16 & 17.
Section 482 CrPC — Bhajan Lal principles reiterated — Proceedings liable to be quashed where allegations do not disclose offence.
The High Court reiterated categories laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal governing exercise of inherent powers, particularly where allegations taken at face value do not constitute offence or proceedings are maliciously instituted.
— Para 9.
Quashing of criminal proceedings — Probability of conviction remote and bleak — Accused should not be subjected to ordeal of trial.
The Court held that where even accepting allegations in complaint as true, no prima facie offence is disclosed and possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, compelling accused to undergo criminal trial would amount to abuse of process warranting interference under Section 482 CrPC.
— Para 20.
No comments:
Post a Comment