Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(All) 2760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA,J.
Bharatendu Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 2 Others – Respondent
APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 743 of 2025
Decided on : 28-01-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shivendra S Singh Rathore, Krishana Kumar Singh
For the Respondent: G.A.

The court ruled that initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C requires clear evidence of falsehood that impacts judicial proceedings, not mere inaccuracies.

Headnote:
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 340 and 195 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 191, 192, 193, 196, 199 - Application for setting aside orders regarding false questionnaires - The applicant alleged that the opposite parties fabricated false questionnaires to mislead the court, constituting serious fraud. The trial court found no basis for proceeding under Section 340, ruling that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the alleged falsehood affected judicial functioning. (Paras 4, 10, 14)

(B) Perjury - Standards for initiating proceedings - The court highlighted that proceedings under Section 340 require a prima facie opinion of sufficient grounds for action, emphasizing that mere inaccuracies do not warrant prosecution. (Paras 6, 8)

Facts of the case:
The applicant sought to challenge orders dismissing applications regarding questionnaires which were allegedly false and intended to mislead the court.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld the trial courts' decisions, noting that the applicant did not meet the threshold for initiating perjury proceedings.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the conduct of the opposite parties warranted proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the alleged falsehood did not impact the administration of justice, thus not meeting the criteria for initiating perjury proceedings.

Result: Application dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Om Prakash Shukla, J.

1. Heard Shri Shivendra S Singh Rathore, learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the for the State-respondents and perused the material placed on record.

2. The present application has been filed praying for setting-aside the final judgment/order dated 03.10.2024 passed by the learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow in Criminal Appeal No. 66/2023 (Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev Krishna & 2 others) filed under section 341 of the Cr. P.C by the applicant as well as the order dated 16.03.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Lucknow in Crl. Misc. Case No.1041/2023 (Bhartendu Pratap Singh V/s Rajeev Krishna & 2 others) filed under section 340 of the Cr. P.C by the applicant.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 prepared questionnaires under General Rules (Criminal), 1977 for declaration of a fact was false and they knew that the said questionaires were false on the date when the same was obtained under the seal and signature of the concerned Court. According to him, the learned CJM, Lucknow, while exercising jurisdiction under section 340 Cr.P.C has committed material irregularity in forming opinion contrary to the admissible documentary proof of the offence under section 191 and section 192 of the Indian Penal Code , which paves foundation for the offence under section 196 and 199 of the IPC . According to the learned counsel for the applicant, the gravity of the offence is such that new modus operandi has been invented by the opposite party Nos.2 and 3 to misuse a legal instrument to cater to their quests for personal gains which evidently has become so intense that the opposite parties, who are involved in litigation and are senior Government servants, did not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood.

4. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submits that such an act is not only a prescribed offence but a serious fraud has been played upon the Court and the learned trial Court despite having the documentary evidence has not only committed grave irregularity in not proceeding any further but has also in improper exercise of its jurisdiction has not conducted the preliminary enquiry as envisaged under section 2(g) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that the opposite parties committed such offence with the intention and design to misuse the questionnaires in the proceedings under law/before public servants particularly their competent Disciplinary/Vigilance Authorities of the Government and as such the questionnaires were receivable as evidence, whereas the same were totally false. In the written submission filed after the completion of arguments, the learned Counsel for the applicant has also relied on the judgment of (i) Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. v/s The UOI, 1992 CRLJ 3752(Bom.), (ii) M.S Jaggi V/s Registrar, High Court of Orissa &Anr. (1983) CRLJ 1527 and (iii) Pritish V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2002(1) SCC 253.

5. Per contra, the learned AGA for the State-opposite party No.1 has vehemently opposed the petition and have submitted that the facts of the case do not trigger the minimum threshold required for maintaining an application under section 340 Cr. P.C and both the learned CJM and the learned Sessions Court have rightly dismissed the application & appeal of the applicant by giving a valid and cogent reasoning. Learned A.G.A has stated that the impugned orders does not call for any interference by this Court and the present application may be dismissed. The learned A.G.A. also relied on the Constitutional Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah V/s Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370.

6. Having regard to the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and going through record, this Court before embarking on the path of deciding the present application may mention that the learned counsel for the applicant has tried to distinguish the Constitutional Bench Judgment of Iqba