Observing a recent increase in matrimonial conflicts fueled by contentious and malicious intentions, resulting in a substantial court backlog, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has set out guiding principles for the utilization of Section 340 Cr.P.C. in these instances.
In a distinct judgment, the High Court reversed a Family Court’s choice to press charges under Sections 191, 193, 199, and 209 IPC, alongside Section 340 CrPC, against a wife accused of perjury for falsely asserting unemployment in an affidavit. The Court commented on the rising pattern of commencing perjury proceedings in marital disputes.
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar opined that, “a justice dispensation system can be considered successful only if it is swift, accessible and affordable. However, the recent surge in matrimonial disputes motivated by litigious and vexatious spirit, has left the Courts with considerable pendency.”
The Court added that, “vice of frivolous litigation initiated merely to harass the other party or settle scores with them must be discouraged. The judicial process is too sacrosanct to be allowed to be misused in order to gratify feelings of vengeance and pursue personal vendettas.”
To invoke Section 340 Cr.P.C., the action in question must go beyond mere inaccuracies and demonstrate intent. The decision of the Court to commence perjury proceedings relies not only on the existence of a prima facie case but also on its assessment of whether such prosecution aligns with the public interest.
The judge stressed that the legal system should not be manipulated to oppress or unnecessarily harass individuals. Justice Brar highlighted the established principle that courts must not be exploited to fulfill the personal vendettas of the involved parties. Launching groundless prosecution would not only squander judicial resources but also taxpayer funds. Hence, perjury charges should only be pursued when it is unequivocally evident that doing so serves the cause of justice by holding the guilty party accountable, the judge concluded.
The Court laid down the following guiding principles for invoking the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. in matrimonial cases:
(i) There must be sufficient material available on record to indicate conspicuous and intentional nature of the alleged falsehood and mere inaccuracy or misstatement would remain inadequate for launching such prosecution.
(ii) The formation of a prima facie opinion by the Court that such prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice and, appropriate in view of the facts of the case is sine qua non.
(iii) There must be a deliberately and consciously made statement which is found to be false after comparing it with unimpeachable evidence, documentary or otherwise.
(iv) The Court must only sanction prosecution for perjury only in cases where it appears that conviction is reasonably probable and breaches the threshold for the charge of deliberate and conscious falsehood.
(v) The Court must consider the magnitude of the obstruction caused by the alleged offence to administration of justice. It must also be seen if such falsehood has any impact on the outcome of the case.
(vi) The proceedings for perjury cannot be launched in a mechanical manner, at the ipse dixit of an estranged spouse if plausible explanation has been provided for making such omission or misstatement. The failure to exercise due care and caution can be visited upon by imposing cost on the delinquent.
(vii) As perjury is an offence against public justice, the Court will act as the complainant, in order to preserve the purity of the judicial process. No party can be allowed to abuse the process of Court as an instrument of oppression and cause needless harassment to the other party, motivated purely by personal spite.
(viii) The order passed on application under Section 340 Cr.P.C must reflect application of mind and satisfy the objective standards of reason and justice as it has the potential to affect the liberty of a citizen.
Perjury Proceeding Need Not To Be Executed On Every False Statement Lacking Deliberate Attempt To Mislead Court
The Court also observed that every incorrect and false statement lacking deliberate attempt to mislead the Court does not need to be addressed exclusively by initiation of perjury proceedings.
“The ends of justice would be met if the litigant making such incorrect statement is burdened with costs, proportional to facts and circumstances of each case. The Courts must separate the chaff from the grain o ensure that the stream of justice is not clogged by ill-intended, vexatious proceedings,” it said.
The judge explained that at times, allowing minor irregularities to be remedied is more advantageous to the cause of justice than initiating separate proceedings.
“It is only when a conscious attempt has been made to mislead the Court in an overpowering fashion to get a favourable result that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be reasonably initiated,” it said.
The Court was hearing the revision petition of a woman who had challenged the order of a family court which directed to file a complaint against her for offence of perjury under Sections 191, 193, 199, and 209 of the IPC, read with Section 340 of the CrPC, in response to her husband’s plea.
He alleged that in a proceeding for maintenance, his wife had filed a false affidavit claiming unemployment, despite allegedly working in a bank.
After hearing the submission the Court explained that the following become the two essential pre-conditions for invoking this provision:
(i) The material produced before the Court must be sufficient for the formation of prima facie opinion that inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. as alleged in the complaint, is necessary.
(ii) The Court must record a finding that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence.
The Court said that the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be invoked only in exceptional circumstances, “even with more circumspection in matrimonial cases, where the Court is of the opinion that a party has deliberately committed perjury, in order to extract a beneficial order from the Court.”
Adding that estranged spouses, in a litigious fit, involve each other in multiple litigations and leave no stone unturned to inflict more misery on to each other, the Court said, Owing to the same, it has “recently seen an increase in initiation of perjury proceedings in matrimonial disputes, said the Court.”
In the present case, the Court noted that, the petitioner had resigned from her job in 2022 which clearly shows that she was unemployed on the date of filing of the income and assets affidavit.
“There is nothing on record that would aid in formation of an opinion to the effect that it is a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood, made by the petitioner with mala fide intentions and an oblique motive,” the Court opined.
It further said that, a perusal of the record indicates that the learned Court below has passed the impugned order without recording its opinion that prosecution of the petitioner in the instant case, is expedient in the interest of justice.
Stating that the impugned order passed by the Family Court was passed without following the drill of the relevant statutory provisions, the Court, hereby, set aside the matter and remanded back to the trial court.
While disposing of the plea, the Court directed to circulate a copy of of the order to all the Family Courts within the jurisdiction of the States of Punjab and Haryana as well as Union Territory, Chandigarh for information and compliance.
