Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, SANJAY KAROL, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
James Kunjwal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 3350 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9783 of 2023)
Decided On : 13-08-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 193 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 229] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 195(b)(1) [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 215] – Perjury – Mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract offence under the Section – There should be deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance – Court should be of prima facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against person who has allegedly made a false statement(s) – Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is expedient in interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be innocent/immaterial – Denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from statement made by appellant in affidavit – Statements made in affidavit were only to state his version of events and/or deny version put forth by complainant – Such statements do not make it expedient in interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which such sections may be invoked – Given that these proceedings would constitute an offence, independent of one for which appellant is already facing trial, it cannot be unequivocally held that there was deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance – Direction of High Court in regard to registering complaint against Appellant set aside and any proceedings arising therefrom shall stand quashed – Appeal allowed. (Paras 16, 18, 19 and 21)
Facts of the case:
Impugned in present appeal is final order dated 1st October 2022, passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Bail Cancellation Application, whereby, although said application was dismissed, it was observed that appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit before High Court and as such, direction was issued to Registrar of High Court to file complaint against him.
Findings of Court:
Decision in this appeal shall have no bearing on criminal case pending against appellant which shall proceed on its own merits as per law.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the Supreme Court judgment:
Case Details * Case Name: James Kunjwal vs. State Of Uttarakhand & Anr. * Citation: 2024 Supreme (SC) 663; 2024 4 ACR 132; 2024 AIR(SC) 3965; 2024 129 AllCriC 623; 2024 4 EastCrC(SC) 52; 2024 INSC 601; 2024 4 JCR(SC) 191; 2024 2 KLD 376; 2024 KLT(Online) 2082; 2024 3 LawHerald(SC) 2339; 2024 3 MLJ(Cri) 433; 2024 8 SCR 332; 2024 2 OLR 403; 2024 6 Supreme 159. * Court: Supreme Court of India (Bench: B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.). * Decision Date: 13-08-2024. * Outcome: Appeal allowed; High Court direction to register a complaint set aside; proceedings quashed. (!)
Legal Provisions Referred * Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023: Section 229 (Perjury). (!) * Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023: Section 215. (!) * Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973: Section 195 and Section 195(1)(b). (!) * Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860: Section 193 (Punishment for False Evidence) and Section 191 (Giving false evidence). (!)
Key Legal Principles Established * Threshold for Perjury: There must be a "deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance." (!) * Prima Facie Opinion: The Court must be of the prima facie opinion that there are sufficient and reasonable grounds to initiate proceedings against the alleged false statement maker. (!) * Suspicion vs. Offence: Mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence of perjury. (!) * Interest of Justice: Proceedings under these sections should only be initiated when it is "expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent," not merely due to inaccuracy that may be innocent or immaterial. (!) * Denial Simpliciter: A simple denial of allegations (denial simpliciter) does not meet the threshold for perjury, especially if no malafide intention or deliberate attempt to deceive is evident. (!) * Exceptional Circumstances: Such proceedings are reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as when a party perjury themselves to obtain beneficial orders from the Court. (!)
Facts of the Case * Background: The appellant was an accused in an FIR under Sections 376 & 504 IPC for alleged relations on false pretence of marriage. (!) * Conflict: The complainant alleged the appellant continued harassment via WhatsApp messages and status updates despite a promise made at the police station to stop. (!) * Appellant's Response: In his affidavit before the High Court, the appellant denied the complainant's allegations, stating that WhatsApp statuses are not direct messages sent to specific individuals and represent a privacy invasion by viewers rather than an act by the poster. (!) * High Court Order: The High Court of Uttarakhand, while dismissing the bail cancellation application, observed that the appellant "intentionally filed a false affidavit" and directed the Registrar to file a complaint under Section 193 IPC. (!) * Appeal Ground: The appellant argued that mere denial of averments in pleadings does not constitute perjury and that the Court is not bound to file a complaint unless it is expedient in the interest of justice. (!)
Court's Reasoning * The statements made by the appellant were essentially a denial of the complainant's version of events and a statement of his own version. (!) * No malafide intention or deliberate attempt to deceive could be understood from the appellant's affidavit. (!) * The appellant was already facing a trial for the main offence; initiating separate proceedings for perjury based on these statements would constitute an independent offence without clear evidence of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance. (!) * The respondent (State) provided no specific material evidence to prove the falsehood, only alleging untruthfulness. (!)
Final Ruling * The direction of the High Court to register a complaint against the appellant is set aside. (!) * Any proceedings arising from the complaint filed under Section 193 IPC are quashed. (!) * The decision has no bearing on the main criminal case pending against the appellant, which will proceed on its own merits. (!)
JUDGMENT :
(Sanjay Karol, J.) :
Leave Granted.
2. Impugned in the present appeal is the final order dated 1st October 2022, passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Bail Cancellation Application No.24/2022, whereby, although the said application was dismissed, it was observed that James Kunjwal, the present appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit before the High Court and as such, a direction was issued to the Registrar (Judl.) of the High Court to file a complaint against him. This, in a nutshell, forms the basis for this appeal.
3. It would be necessary to appreciate the background in which the impugned order came to be passed. Briefly stated, the facts are :-
3.2 In reference to the said FIR, the appellant applied for bail, before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nainital which was rejected.3[First Bail Petition No.180 of 2021, at Annexure P-3]. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant pleaded his case for bail before the High Court.4[First Bail Application No.1190 of 2021, at Annexure P-4], Vide order dated 8th June, 2021, such an application was allowed.
3.3 The complainant sought cancellation of such order of bail by way of Bail Cancellation Application No.24/2022. Various grounds were urged therein, including the appellant having made contradictory statements.
3.4 The High Court, while dismissing the application for cancellation of bail, vide impugned judgment made observations and issued directions, now the subject matter of adjudication in appeal before this Court.
4. The order dated 1st October, 2022 of the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the bail cancellation application, made reference to the conflict of facts in the affidavits filed by the complainant and the present appellant. While the complainant submitted in her affidavit that certain events took place, the present appellant denied the same with certain explanations. It was further noted that the State’s affidavit supported the position of the present respondent. Despite the said contradiction having been brought to the notice of the present appellant, he “did not assist the Court in finding the truth about the incident of 24.07.2022”. It was, as such, concluded that the appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit before the Court. Accordingly, in the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, issued the following directions:
5. Pursuant to such an Order by the High Court, a complaint under Section 193 of the IPC was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nainital bearing the following particulars - Criminal Complaint No.2991 of 2022, titled as State Through Registrar (Judicial), Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital v. James Kunjwal.
6. By way of the special leave petition it is urged 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 is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so. Reliance is placed on a Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370.
7. In the counter affidavit it has been claimed that the appellant has misrepresented and twist
Perjury – There should be deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance – Court should be of prima facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against per....
Judicial discretion under Section 340 of the CrPC requires significant evidence of falsehood and must not serve personal grievances, but rather ensure expedience in justice.
Filing a false affidavit is a serious offense and can lead to legal consequences under the Indian Penal Code and the Contempt of Courts Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the procedure under Sections 195 and 340 of the Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the offense of alleged false evidence is mandatory, and not all contra....
Prosecution for perjury under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires prima facie evidence and expediency in the interest of justice, particularly when considering delays and motivations behind complaints.
For prosecution under Section 193 IPC, a deliberate falsehood in significant matters must be established, not mere contradictions or inaccuracies.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
