Supreme Court Quashes Perjury Case Against MP in Election Petition Dispute

The case of Prof. Chintamani Malviya v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh revolved around an allegation of perjury against a sitting Member of Parliament (MP) in an election petition case. The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether criminal proceedings should be initiated against the MP for allegedly making a false statement regarding the service of notice in the election petition against him.

Background of the Case

Prof. Chintamani Malviya was elected as a Member of Parliament from the Ujjain Lok Sabha Constituency in 2014. His election was challenged in the Madhya Pradesh High Court by Premchand Guddu in Election Petition No. 33 of 2014.

The High Court issued a notice to Malviya on 31.07.2014, to be served through the District Judge, Ujjain. The notice was reportedly served on 16.08.2014 by a process server named Arun Bhalerao. However, Malviya did not appear before the High Court on 01.09.2014, the returnable date, and the case proceeded ex parte based on the service report.

Later, Malviya filed an application on 29.01.2015 under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), stating that the notice had been served on one of his employees while he was in Delhi, and that he had learned about the election petition only on 25.01.2015. The election petitioner, Premchand Guddu, countered this claim, alleging that Malviya had lied under oath and should be prosecuted for perjury under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

High Court’s Decision

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, on 24.03.2015, allowed Malviya’s application to set aside the ex parte order and permitted him to participate in the proceedings. However, on the same day, the court also allowed the election petitioner’s plea for initiating criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, directing the Principal Registrar of the High Court to file a complaint for perjury against Malviya.

The High Court reasoned:

“After recording the statements and taking into consideration the served notice bearing No. 1762 dated 12.08.2014, it is apparent that notice was served personally on the respondent while in the affidavit, he mentioned that notice was served on his staff.”

The court observed that Malviya, being a public representative and an educated individual, was expected to exercise caution while making statements before the court. Consequently, it found that there was a prima facie case for perjury and directed the prosecution.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Arguments by the Appellant (Prof. Chintamani Malviya)

The counsel for Malviya argued:

The prosecution for perjury should only be initiated in cases where the falsehood is deliberate and substantial.
There was no conclusive evidence proving that Malviya was personally served the notice.
In cases of minor inaccuracies or unintentional errors, prosecution should not be initiated.
The High Court failed to consider that Malviya’s delay in filing his application indicated that he was genuinely unaware of the notice.

Arguments by the Respondent (High Court of Madhya Pradesh)

The respondent argued:

Malviya knowingly made a false statement in court, which was proven by the process server’s statement.
Since he was a public representative, he should be held to a higher standard of responsibility.
As per Baban Singh v. Jagdish Singh, a party is bound to make truthful statements in court, and any deviation warrants legal action.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Malviya and quashed the perjury proceedings. The Court relied on past precedents, particularly Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, which stated:

“Prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely.”

The Court reiterated that prosecution should not be ordered merely because there was an inaccuracy in a statement, especially when the discrepancy is immaterial. The guiding principle should be whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to punish the person.

The Court further cited Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Patel, stating:

“The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of IPC.”

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Prosecution for perjury should only be initiated in cases of deliberate and material falsehood.
Courts should assess whether perjury prosecution serves the interests of justice before ordering it.
Minor inaccuracies or unintentional errors in affidavits do not warrant criminal prosecution.
A public representative is expected to be truthful, but prosecution should not be automatic for every misstatement.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to quash the perjury proceedings against Prof. Chintamani Malviya sets an important precedent for handling allegations of perjury in election petitions. The judgment reinforces that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool to punish minor misstatements unless there is a clear and deliberate intent to mislead the court. This ruling ensures a balanced approach, safeguarding individuals from unnecessary criminal litigation while upholding the integrity of judicial proceedings.

Petitioner Name: Prof. Chintamani Malviya.
Respondent Name: High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment By: Justice Arun Mishra, Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.
Place Of Incident: Madhya Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 27-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Prof. Chintamani Mal vs High Court of Madhya Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 27-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Legal Malpractice
See all petitions in Contempt Of Court cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Arun Mishra
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category