In Brief
In this matrimonial dispute, the husband made statements in anticipatory bail applications alleging the wife's infidelity. The High Court found a prima facie case of perjury under Section 340 CrPC and ordered prosecution. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that prosecution for perjury requires deliberate falsehood proven against unimpeachable evidence. Since the main criminal case was still pending and evidence had not been tested, preliminary investigation findings and contradictory statements were insufficient. The court emphasized that perjury proceedings should be exceptional, ordered only when expedient in the interests of justice, not merely on suspicion or rejected rival contentions.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.