Abuse of Process: Section 340 CrPC Inapplicable to Adjudicatory Authorities Acting on Allegedly Erroneous Inquiry Reports

The Petitioner, a former Constable in the Delhi Police, was punished with the permanent withholding of one increment following disciplinary proceedings for misbehaving with a superior.

This punishment was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), the High Court, and finally the Supreme Court in July 2019.

After losing the civil litigation, the Petitioner initiated criminal proceedings, alleging that the Inquiry Officer (IO) provided an erroneous English translation of a witness statement.

He subsequently filed multiple Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) before the Tribunal seeking to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against the Joint Commissioner of Police (JCP), arguing that by acting on the IO's report, the JCP was equally culpable for the alleged perjury.

The Tribunal dismissed MA 1517/2023 on 15 January 2026, leading to the present writ petition.

1. Whether the JCP can be held liable for prosecution under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. for acting upon an inquiry report containing an allegedly erroneous translation.

2. Whether the Petitioner's conduct in repeatedly filing applications for criminal proceedings after the exhaustion of civil remedies constitutes an abuse of the process of law.

The court applied Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), which outlines the procedure for cases mentioned in Section 195 regarding offenses against the administration of justice, such as perjury.

The court emphasized that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated on a "whim" and require a finding that such action is "expedient in the interest of justice".

The court distinguished administrative adjudicatory roles from the act of leading false evidence in a court of law.

The Court observed that the Petitioner was a "trigger-happy litigant" who sought to target respondent officers personally after failing to secure relief in civil courts up to the Supreme Court.

The Court rejected the Petitioner's logic that an officer (the JCP) becomes criminally liable for perjury simply by accepting an inquiry report, noting such a "preposterous" reasoning would theoretically make every appellate judge liable for prosecution if they upheld a lower decision.

The Court noted that the Petitioner never raised the translation issue during the original disciplinary or appellate stages, indicating a lack of bona fides.

It found that Section 340 Cr.P.C. applications were being misused as a tool to pressurize officials rather than to serve the ends of justice.

The Court denied the Petitioner’s request to withdraw the petition, as past conduct suggested he would simply reinstitute the proceedings, and imposed costs of ₹15,000 to be paid to the Delhi High Court Legal Services Authority within three weeks.