Prosecution under Section 193 IPC is unsustainable for false affidavits not made during judicial proceedings.

The Respondent (complainant) filed a private complaint against her husband, the Petitioner, alleging that at the time of their marriage on 17/07/2013, he executed a notarized affidavit falsely stating he was never married, despite being a divorcee

She further alleged that the Petitioner unauthorizedly transferred her bank account from Shajapur to Patan

Based on these allegations, the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Shajapur, issued a summoning order on 06/08/2022, taking cognizance under Sections 193, 200, 417, and 468 of the IPC

This order was affirmed by the Revisional Court on 24/06/2023

The Petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., contending the charges were a result of matrimonial vengeance, noting that a decree of divorce had already been passed between the parties in 2019

1. Whether the execution of a false affidavit for marriage purposes, not used in a judicial proceeding, attracts criminal liability under Sections 193 and 200 of the IPC.

2. Whether a prima facie case under Sections 417 and 468 of the IPC is established regarding the transfer of a bank account without evidence of forgery or wrongful loss.

3. Whether the criminal proceedings were initiated with an ulterior motive to wreak personal vengeance, warranting quashment under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

The court primarily applied Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of the BNSS, 2023) to prevent the abuse of the process of any court

It relied on the principles from Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P., which mandates that a Magistrate must apply judicial mind to ensure "sufficient grounds" exist before summoning an accused

The court invoked the doctrine from Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P., requiring courts to scrutinize frivolous or vexatious proceedings instituted with ulterior motives more closely

Regarding false declarations, it applied the rule from Jotish Chandra Chaudhury v. State of Bihar, which requires that a false statement be material to the object of the declaration and used corruptly to attract Section 200 IPC

The court found that the affidavit in question was neither submitted nor utilized in any judicial proceeding, a prerequisite for Section 193 IPC

It noted that the complainant’s brother admitted to preparing the affidavit and that there was no evidence the marriage was contingent upon the Petitioner’s prior marital status

Regarding the bank transfer, the court observed that bank officials confirmed transfers require the account holder's consent; thus, no forgery or cheating was prima facie evident, especially as no wrongful loss was established

The court highlighted the history of matrimonial discord and the fact that the complaint was filed after the marriage had already been dissolved by a divorce decree, leading to the conclusion that the litigation was an attempt to settle personal scores rather than seek justice

The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the summoning order dated 06/08/2022, the revisional order dated 24/06/2023, and all consequential proceedings in RCT No. 718/2022