Suspicion Is Not Proof of Fabrication: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Section 340 CrPC Proceedings Against Police Officials Over Arrest-Record Discrepancies

Case Name: Ajit Rai and Others v. State of Haryana

Date of Judgment: 1 September 2026

Citation: CRA-S-422-SB-2018

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that discrepancies or suspicious circumstances in police arrest and custody records cannot, by themselves, justify prosecution under Section 340 CrPC. Before directing such prosecution, the court must identify the precise false statement or fabricated document, determine whether the alleged offence falls within Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, and record a considered finding that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice because the alleged act has a direct and substantial impact upon the administration of justice. The special procedure under Section 340 CrPC cannot be employed merely to punish every irregularity or suspected wrongdoing noticed during judicial proceedings.

Summary: The appeal arose from an order of the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, directing prosecution of several police officials for offences under Sections 166, 167, 195, 196, 211, 220, 346, 465 and 471 IPC, among others. The underlying criminal case concerned an alleged firing incident registered under Section 307 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. During the investigation, two accused were allegedly arrested at Police Station Dhand and taken to the CIA Staff, Kaithal. A Warrant Officer appointed in a habeas corpus petition found them at the CIA premises, but no corresponding entry regarding their presence was available in the CIA Roznamcha. The accused were subsequently acquitted because the complainant and injured witnesses did not identify them as the assailants.

While acquitting the accused, the Sessions Judge ordered a preliminary inquiry into whether the FIR had been ante-dated, whether the accused had formally been arrested, and whether they had lawfully been taken to the CIA Staff. Following the inquiry, the Sessions Judge treated the discrepancies in the police record as indicating fabrication of evidence and directed that the order itself be treated as a complaint under Section 340 CrPC.

The High Court found that the Sessions Judge had proceeded from suspicion to prosecution without identifying any particular statement made on oath that was deliberately false or any specific document fabricated in or in relation to the judicial proceedings and knowingly used to mislead the court. The Court emphasised the legal distinction between circumstances raising suspicion about the correctness of a police record and a prima facie case of deliberate fabrication of evidence. Although irregularities in arrest and custody records may warrant administrative, departmental or other action permissible in law, they do not automatically satisfy the stringent statutory requirements of Sections 195 and 340 CrPC.

The Court further observed that Sections 166, 167, 220 and 346 IPC are not offences covered by Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. The Sessions Judge had also failed to examine separately whether the ingredients of Sections 195, 196, 211, 465 and 471 IPC were made out. Relying upon the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, the High Court noted that the alleged police documents had purportedly been prepared or manipulated during investigation, before being produced in court, and there was no finding that any fabrication occurred after the documents entered the court’s custody.

Crucially, the acquittal in the principal criminal case resulted from the prosecution witnesses turning hostile and not identifying the accused. It was not based upon the allegedly manipulated arrest records. Therefore, the alleged irregularities were not shown to have affected the adjudication of the criminal case or the administration of justice in the manner required for invoking Section 340 CrPC. The Sessions Judge’s earlier observation that a preliminary inquiry was expedient could not substitute the separate and considered satisfaction required after completion of that inquiry.

The High Court also disapproved the procedure adopted by the Sessions Judge in directing that the impugned order itself be treated as a complaint. Section 340 CrPC requires the court, after recording the requisite finding, to make a complaint in writing and forward it to the competent Magistrate. Merely treating the judicial order as the complaint was held to be procedurally improper.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The complaint/order passed by the Sessions Judge, Kaithal, directing initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against the appellants was set aside. The High Court clarified that it had not held the allegations concerning the arrest, custody or preparation of police records to be false, nor had it ruled upon the permissibility of departmental or other proceedings under law. Its decision was confined to the legal unsustainability of the complaint under Section 340 CrPC.