J U D G M E N T

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 :- 3.1 The appellant was made an accused in FIR No.109 of 2021 dated 2nd May, 2021 under Sections 376 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of 1860)1 by the second respondent ‘X’2 on the ground that the appellant had established relations with her on the false pretext of marriage, and the same continued after efforts towards marriage by the complainant repeatedly fell through.

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 Aggrieved thereby, the appellant pleaded his case for bail before the High Court.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 1 ‘IPC’ hereinafter 2 Complainant 3 First Bail Petition No.180 of 2021, at Annexure P-3 4 First Bail Application No.1190 of 2021, at Annexure P-4 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:

“28. The above narration establishes that the respondent no.2 intentionally filed false affidavit before the Court, Therefore, this Court requests Registrar, Judicial of this Court to file a complaint against the respondent no.2 in, the court of competent jurisdiction for filing a false affidavit.”

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 Marwah5. 7. In the counter affidavit it has been claimed that the appellant has misrepresented and twisted certain facts, for in