Cognizance of False Affidavit Case Without Proper Jurisdiction is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Magistrate’s Order

Section 340 CrPC Requires That the Court Where Proceedings Are Pending Must Initiate Perjury Action - In a significant ruling delivered on March 5, 2025, the Calcutta High Court set aside an order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Calcutta, who had taken cognizance of alleged false statements made in an affidavit of assets and liabilities in a domestic violence case. The Court, in Garima Shaw @ Guddi Shaw v. Umesh Kumar Shaw & Another, ruled that "the power to initiate perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC lies only with the court where the original proceeding is pending, and any order passed by another court is without jurisdiction."

Observing that "mechanical cognizance of alleged perjury without due compliance with Section 195 CrPC is legally unsustainable," the Court set aside the Magistrate’s order, allowing the wife’s challenge against the criminal case initiated by her husband.

"Wife’s False Affidavit Allegation Must Be Dealt with by the Court Where the Original Case is Pending" – High Court Rejects Husband’s Plea
The case arose from a domestic dispute in which the petitioner, Garima Shaw, had filed an application under Section 12 read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking maintenance and residential rights. The husband, Umesh Kumar Shaw, objected to her claims and alleged that she had submitted a false affidavit regarding her financial status to obtain interim relief.

The husband filed an application under Section 340 CrPC, alleging perjury under Sections 193, 199, and 209 of the IPC, and sought criminal action against the wife. However, instead of filing the application before the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, where the domestic violence case was pending, the matter was erroneously placed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Calcutta, who took cognizance and transferred the case back to the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate.

Rejecting this approach, the High Court ruled that "Section 340 CrPC mandates that any perjury complaint must originate from the same court where the original case is pending. The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to take cognizance and pass any order in this matter."

"Perjury Proceedings Are Not Automatic – Courts Must Follow Due Process" – High Court Cautions Against Misuse of Section 340 CrPC
The High Court emphasized that "perjury is a serious offense, but initiating prosecution requires judicial application of mind. Courts must conduct a preliminary inquiry and determine whether pursuing perjury proceedings is expedient in the interest of justice."

Referring to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, the Court observed that "mere allegations of falsehood in an affidavit do not automatically warrant criminal action. The court handling the original case must first assess whether the false statement materially affects the proceedings before directing prosecution."

The High Court found that the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Calcutta, had exceeded jurisdiction by taking cognizance without first verifying whether the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate had conducted the required preliminary inquiry.

"Jurisdiction Matters – Wrong Court Cannot Take Cognizance Under Section 195 CrPC" – High Court Sets Aside Magistrate’s Order
The Court ruled that "Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC explicitly bars any court from taking cognizance of offenses like perjury unless a written complaint is made by the court where the false statement was allegedly made. Since no such complaint was filed by the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II had no power to take cognizance."

It observed that "provisions of Section 340 CrPC exist to protect the administration of justice from false claims, but they must not be misused to initiate harassment through parallel criminal proceedings."

The High Court concluded that "since the entire case was wrongly placed before a court lacking jurisdiction, the order taking cognizance must be set aside."

Criminal Proceedings Quashed, Magistrate’s Order Declared Illegal
Allowing the wife’s petition, the High Court ruled that "the cognizance order dated 03.11.2021 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Calcutta, is legally unsustainable and is hereby set aside." It clarified that "if the husband wishes to pursue perjury charges, he must file an application before the 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, who will decide the matter in accordance with Section 340 CrPC."

The Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed that "criminal prosecution for perjury must be initiated by the court where the alleged false statement was made, and any other court lacks jurisdiction to take cognizance."

By setting aside the erroneous order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-II, Calcutta, the ruling ensures that "perjury proceedings are not used as a tool for harassment and that due legal process is followed before initiating criminal action."
 

Date of Decision: 05 March 2025