S. 193 IPC | When Can Perjury Proceedings Be Initiated Against A Litigant? Supreme Court Explains

While quashing a perjury proceeding against a litigant, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (Aug. 13) laid down the yardsticks which should be fulfilled for initiating proceedings for the offence of perjury under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justices Sanjay Karol and KV Viswanathan was deciding an appeal preferred by a litigant against the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court directing the registration of a complaint under Section 193 of IPC against the appellant for filing a false affidavit before the Court in a bail cancellation proceeding.

The appellant was an accused in a case of rape over a false pretext of marriage. He was granted bail by the High Court. The complainant in the rape case thereafter filed an application to cancel the bail.

The High Court rejected the bail cancellation plea but issued directions for the registration of FIR for an offence of perjury, in view of certain inconsistencies between the affidavits of the complainant and the appellant.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that mere denial of the averments in the pleadings would not constitute the offence of perjury. Further, it was urged that a Court is not “bound” to make a complaint under Section 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless it believes that it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so.

In the counter affidavit, it was claimed that the appellant had misrepresented and twisted certain facts, which reasonably amounts to committing an act of perjury.

Based on the settled precedents, the Judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol developed the yardsticks that need to be fulfilled to book a person for the offence of perjury: -

"(i) The Court should be of the prima facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against the person who has allegedly made a false statement(s);

(ii) Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is “expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent” and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be innocent/immaterial;

(iii) There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;

(iv) The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion;

(v) Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the Court.”

The judgment clarified that at least three of the above yardsticks must be fulfilled for the Court to initiate proceedings.

"We find that at least three of the possible scenarios, as discussed supra, in which a court would be justified in invoking these powers on the face of it appear to be unmet, prosecution, therefore, would be unjust"

The Court said that since the statements made in the affidavit were only to state his (appellant's) version of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant, therefore mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under Section 193 of IPC.

“We are also of the firm opinion that such statements do not make it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which such Sections may be invoked. Given that these proceedings would constitute an offence, independent of the one for which the appellant is already facing trial, it cannot be unequivocally held that there was deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance.”, the court said.

“We are of the view that, in the present facts, a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, as described in the judgments above, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the appellant (accused) in the affidavit.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the direction of the High Court of Uttarakhand in regard to registering a complaint against the present appellant was set aside.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Sweta Rani, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Madhur Panjwani, Adv. Mr. Ankit Shah, Adv. Mr. Manan Verma, AOR

Case Details: JAMES KUNJWAL VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR., Crl.A. No. 003350 / 2024

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 574

Click here to read/download the judgment