False affidavits and forged filings in court can amount to perjury and criminal contempt when they obstruct justice.

Deliberate filing of false counter-affidavits in judicial proceedings, together with participation in or abetment of forgery to support that false stand, was treated as perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found that senior police officers caused the false version to be placed before the Court, while subordinate officers knowingly participated in preparing and filing the affidavit; one officer was exonerated because he was found to have acted under instructions and without intent to forge independently. The filing of fabricated material and persistence in the false stand were also held to interfere with the administration of justice and constitute criminal contempt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the police officers had fabricated and filed false counter-affidavits before the Court; whether the Superintendent of Police and the subordinate officers were guilty under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860; and whether the Superintendent of Police was additionally guilty of criminal contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether the police officers had fabricated and filed false counter-affidavits before the Court.

Analysis: The materials on record, including the statements before the District Judge, the CBI report, and the affidavit and correspondence of the Standing Counsel, established that the counter-affidavits denying illegal detention were prepared and filed on the basis of instructions from the senior police hierarchy. The record further showed that the carbon copy of the affidavit bore a forged signature of the Superintendent of Police and that the subordinate officers were present when the forgery was committed and when the forged document was transmitted for filing. The explanation later offered by the Superintendent of Police was found to be an afterthought.

Conclusion: The Court held that false counter-affidavits had been fabricated and filed in the judicial proceedings.

Issue (ii): Whether the Superintendent of Police and the subordinate officers were guilty under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The Court found that Randhir Singh and Ishwar Singh knowingly participated in the preparation and filing of the false affidavit and abetted the forgery of the Superintendent of Police's signature. As regards the Superintendent of Police, the Court concluded that he had caused the false version to be placed before the Court, had directed the fabrication of the affidavit, and had later attempted to shift responsibility by filing another false affidavit. Krishan Kumar was accepted as not having intended to forge the signature on his own and was treated as having acted under instructions, so he was not convicted.

Conclusion: Randhir Singh, Ishwar Singh, and the Superintendent of Police were held guilty under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while Krishan Kumar was exonerated.

Issue (iii): Whether the Superintendent of Police was additionally guilty of criminal contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The Court held that deliberate filing of false affidavits and use of fabricated material in judicial proceedings interfered with the administration of justice and amounted to criminal contempt. The Superintendent of Police, being responsible for truthful disclosure before the Court, had abused the judicial process by continuing the false stand and attempting to cover up the forgery with a later affidavit.

Conclusion: The Superintendent of Police was held guilty of criminal contempt under Article 129 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings ended with convictions and custodial sentences against the responsible police officers, exoneration of the head constable, and closure of the writ petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: A deliberate false affidavit filed in judicial proceedings, coupled with participation in or abetment of forgery to support that false stand, constitutes perjury under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and, where it obstructs the administration of justice, criminal contempt as well.

---