At the outset, your decision to file a quashing petition before the High Court is absolutely correct. The grounds you have mentioned—same incident, prior complaint by you, suppression of NCR proceedings where the complainant pleaded guilty, lack of medical evidence, absence of CDR, and doubtful SC status at the time of incident—are all strong grounds. While no case can ever be guaranteed at “90%”, your case does fall within recognized categories where courts have intervened to prevent abuse of process.
Coming to your specific queries, you can initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC (now corresponding provisions under BNSS) for filing a false affidavit, but this should be done strategically and preferably after or alongside progress in your quashing petition, because courts are cautious in entertaining perjury proceedings at an early stage. If the High Court records findings regarding falsehood or suppression, your 340 application becomes much stronger.
As regards criminal defamation against the wife for statements made before NCW, such proceedings are technically maintainable, but courts generally treat complaints made before statutory authorities as privileged communication, unless clear malice and falsehood are demonstrable. Therefore, it is advisable to defer defamation action until your primary criminal case is favourably decided.
Regarding police conduct, you clearly have grounds to file a writ petition under Article 226 for: challenging biased investigation,
highlighting contradictory reports submitted to NHRC, NCW, and State authorities, and
seeking fair investigation or transfer to an independent agency.
You can also specifically seek direction to place all such contradictory reports on record before the High Court, which will significantly strengthen your quashing case by demonstrating mala fide.
On the issue of malicious prosecution, such a civil suit is maintainable, but only after the criminal proceedings conclude in your favour (i.e., quashing or acquittal). Filing it now would be premature.
As far as challenging the SC certificate is concerned, that cannot be done directly in criminal proceedings. You must approach the competent caste scrutiny authority or district magistrate to challenge its validity. However, for your criminal case, what is more relevant is whether the complainant belonged to an SC/ST category on the date of the incident—this aspect can be strongly argued in your quashing petition.
The suppression of your documents obtained under Section 91 CrPC and the earlier guilty plea of the complainant are serious lapses. These should be specifically highlighted before the High Court as non-application of mind and malicious investigation, which directly supports quashing.
Chronologically, your best course of action would be as follows: continue to aggressively pursue the quashing petition and, if not already done, file for interim stay of proceedings; simultaneously consider filing a writ petition highlighting police bias and contradictory reports; gather certified records of NCR proceedings, RTI replies, and all documentary contradictions; after favourable orders, initiate perjury proceedings and then consider malicious prosecution and defamation actions.
In terms of civil remedies at this stage, your primary remedy lies in constitutional writ jurisdiction rather than a civil suit. Compensation for harassment or malicious investigation can also be sought within the writ petition itself.
In conclusion, your legal position is reasonably strong if properly presented, particularly on the grounds of prior complaint, suppression of material facts, and mala fide intent. The key is to prioritize quashing and writ remedies first, and keep punitive actions like perjury and damages as subsequent steps.
