LexJAMES KUNJWAL versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 332 : 2024 INSC 601 James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3350 of 2024) 13 August 2024 [B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The Single Judge of the High Court observed that the appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit and therefore a direction was issued to the Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court to file a complaint against him. The question that falls for consideration is whether the contents of the affidavit filed before the High Court, constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC, as defined in Section 191 IPC. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – ss.191, 193 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Allegation of filing a false affidavit – Appellant was made accused in an FIR registered u/s. 376 & s.504 of IPC – High Court granted bail to the appellant – Complainant filed bail cancellation application – By order dated 01.10.2022, the High Court dismissed the bail cancellation application and observed that appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit before the High Court: Held: The three essential factors which can be said to be sine qua non for the application of Section 193 IPC are (1) false statement made on oath or in affidavits; (2) that such statements be made in a judicial proceeding; or (3) such statement be made before an authority that has been expressly deemed to be a ‘Court’ – The statement made by the appellant, that has been deemed to be befitting the offence of giving false evidence before the Court, which is known commonly as perjury, was more in the nature of denial of the statements made in the affidavits of the complainant herein – In the instant case, a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the appellant in the affidavit – Mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under the Section 193 of IPC – It cannot be disputed that the statements made in the affidavit were only to state his version * Author [2024] 8 S.C.R. 333 James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant – Also, such statements do not make it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which such Sections may be invoked – The three of the possible scenarios, as discussed, 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 – Consequently, the direction of the High Court in regard to registering a complaint against the present appellant is set aside. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21] Penal Code, 1860 – ss.191, 193 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Perjury – False statement – Deliberate falsehood – When the Court should initiate proceedings against a person, who has allegedly made a false statement: Held: (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. [Para 16] Case Law Cited Dr. S.P. Kohli, Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur v. High Court of Haryana Through Registrar [1979] 1 SCR 722 : (1979) 1 SCC 212; Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr. [1971] Supp. 1 SCR 172 : (1971) 1 SCC 774; R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka [2010] 14 SCR 227 : (2011) 5 SCC 689; Bhima Razu Prasad v. State Rep. by Deputy Supdt. of Police, CBI/SPE/ACU-II [2021] 2 SCR 1020 : (2021) 19 SCC 25 – relied on. Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah [2005] 2 SCR 708 : (2005) 4 SCC 370; Himanshu Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. [2022] 11 SCR 724 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 884; Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar & Ors. [2019] 2 SCR 643 : (2019) 3 SCC 318; Aarish Asgar Q
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.