The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a false affidavit executed in a non-judicial religious ceremony, without any use or submission in a judicial proceeding, cannot form the basis for prosecution under Section 193 IPC. The judgment underscores the necessity of a prima facie case grounded in statutory ingredients and condemns the misuse of criminal law as a tool of personal vengeance in matrimonial disputes.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Sandeep Gupta, and the respondent, Anuradha, were married on 17.07.2023 at Shajapur. Prior to the marriage, the petitioner executed an affidavit before the Arya Samaj stating that he had never been married. In reality, he was a divorcee, having obtained a decree of divorce from a prior marriage on 28.03.2019. The respondent later alleged that the petitioner had concealed his prior marriage and forged documents to facilitate the marriage. She further claimed that the petitioner had fraudulently transferred her bank account from SBI Shajapur to SBI Patan without her consent and subjected her to mental harassment.
Key Facts
- The petitioner and respondent married on 17.07.2023
- The affidavit stating "never married" was executed before the Arya Samaj on the date of marriage
- The petitioner had been previously married and divorced by decree dated 28.03.2019
- The respondent filed a Domestic Violence Act case on 12.05.2015, which was dismissed in default
- The petitioner filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 01.06.2015
- The respondent filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Bhopal on 19.10.2016
- The respondent lodged an FIR under Sections 498-A, 504, and 506 IPC at Police Station Shajapur on 23.10.2016
- The petitioner filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 24.08.2015, to which the respondent appeared
- The brother of the respondent admitted in evidence that he prepared the marriage affidavits
- The Chief Manager of SBI Shajapur, in a letter dated 15.04.2017, confirmed that bank account transfers require the account holder’s consent
- The respondent never raised the issue of the affidavit in any prior litigation
Procedural History
- 17.07.2023: Marriage between petitioner and respondent
- 23.10.2016: FIR filed by respondent under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 IPC
- 28.03.2019: Decree of divorce granted by Family Court, Bhopal
- 06.08.2022: Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur took cognizance under Sections 193, 200, 417, and 468 IPC
- 24.06.2023: First Additional Sessions Judge, Shajapur affirmed the summoning order in Criminal Revision No. 34 of 2022
- 12.06.2023: Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court
- 01.04.2026: Judgment delivered by the High Court
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contended that the affidavit was not submitted in any judicial proceeding, that the bank account transfer was not his doing, and that the entire complaint was a retaliatory measure following years of litigation and marital breakdown. The respondent maintained that the affidavit was fraudulent and that the bank transfer constituted forgery and cheating.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the summoning order dated 06.08.2022 and the revision order dated 24.06.2023, and acquittal of all charges under Sections 193, 200, 417, and 468 IPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the execution of a false affidavit before a religious body (Arya Samaj), without any submission or use in a judicial proceeding, constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC, and whether the alleged bank account transfer can sustain charges under Sections 417 and 468 IPC in the absence of evidence linking the petitioner to the act.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that Section 193 IPC requires false evidence to be given or fabricated for use in a judicial proceeding or its preliminary stage. The affidavit was not submitted to any court, magistrate, or public servant authorized to receive it as evidence. The brother of the respondent admitted to preparing the affidavit, and the respondent never raised the issue in any prior litigation. Regarding Sections 417 and 468 IPC, the counsel cited the SBI letter confirming that account transfers require the account holder’s consent, and no evidence linked the petitioner to the transfer. The entire prosecution, counsel argued, was a tool of vengeance following the divorce and multiple litigations.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel relied on the complainant’s statement under Section 200 CrPC and the police inquiry report, asserting that the false affidavit was material to the marriage and that the bank transfer was fraudulent. They contended that the Magistrate had sufficient grounds to take cognizance and that the High Court should not interfere at the summoning stage.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a rigorous analysis of the statutory requirements under Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC, emphasizing that the offence of false evidence requires the statement to be made in a judicial proceeding or its preliminary stage. The Court held that an affidavit executed before the Arya Samaj, a religious institution, does not qualify as a judicial proceeding under Explanation 2 to Section 193 IPC. The Court cited Jotish Chandra Chaudhury v. State of Bihar to underscore that a false statement must be material to the object of the declaration and used corruptly - neither condition was met.
"The affidavit in question was not submitted or corruptly utilised before any judicial authority or in any judicial proceeding."
Regarding Sections 417 and 468 IPC, the Court noted the absence of any evidence connecting the petitioner to the bank transfer. The SBI’s official communication confirmed that transfers require the account holder’s consent, and no document or witness implicated the petitioner. The Court further observed that the respondent had never alleged the affidavit’s falsity in any of the four prior litigations between the parties, including the divorce proceedings.
The Court invoked Mahmood Ali & Ors. v. State of U.P. and Sunil Bharti Mittal v. CBI to hold that when criminal proceedings are initiated in the backdrop of prolonged matrimonial conflict and multiple FIRs, the Court must look beyond the pleadings to assess whether the case is a genuine prosecution or an abuse of process. The Court concluded that the complaint was filed with ulterior motive to harass the petitioner and that the Magistrate had failed to apply his mind to the factual context.
The Verdict
The petition was allowed. The High Court quashed the summoning order dated 06.08.2022 and the revision order dated 24.06.2023. All proceedings in RCT No. 718/2022 pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shajapur, were set aside. The petitioner was acquitted of all charges under Sections 193, 200, 417, and 468 IPC. Costs of Rs. 25,000 were awarded to the petitioner.
What This Means For Similar Cases
False Affidavits Outside Judicial Proceedings Are Not Criminal
- Practitioners must now argue that Section 193 IPC requires the false statement to be made in a judicial proceeding or its legally recognized preliminary stage
- Affidavits executed before religious bodies, notaries, or private entities cannot trigger criminal liability under Section 193 unless submitted to a court or public servant authorized to receive them as evidence
- The burden shifts to the prosecution to prove both the judicial context and corrupt use of the false statement
Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Cases
- Courts must scrutinize the history of litigation between parties before allowing criminal proceedings to proceed
- Multiple FIRs or complaints filed sequentially after divorce or separation raise a presumption of vendetta
- The High Court’s reliance on Mahmood Ali establishes that abuse of process can be determined by examining the totality of conduct, not just the pleadings
Bank Transfer Allegations Require Concrete Evidence
- In cases involving financial transactions, mere allegations without documentary or testimonial proof linking the accused to the act are insufficient for charges under Sections 417 or 468 IPC
- Official communications from banks or financial institutions confirming procedural safeguards (e.g., consent requirement) can decisively rebut prima facie cases
- Prosecutors must produce direct evidence - not speculation - to establish the accused’s role in fraudulent transfers
