Perjury Against Defendants Under Section 379 BNSS for Swearing False Affidavits in Civil Suits

Litigants embroiled in civil disputes frequently ask whether the opposing party can be prosecuted for perjury when a defendant files and swears an affidavit containing statements that later prove untrue. With the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) replacing the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the relevant provision is now Section 379 BNSS, which corresponds to Section 340 Cr.P.C. The short answer is yes, such proceedings are possible — but they are neither automatic nor easy to obtain. Courts treat the power as discretionary, demanding deliberate and material falsehood supported by compelling evidence before any complaint is sent to a Magistrate.

The Statutory Framework of Section 379 BNSS

Section 379 BNSS prescribes the procedure in cases mentioned in Section 215(1)(b) BNSS, which covers offences against the administration of justice — including giving false evidence. When a court, upon an application, is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry be made into such an offence appearing to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding before it, the court may conduct a preliminary inquiry, record a finding, and make a complaint to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction

Priyadarshini Amrita Panda VS Biswajit Pati - Crimes (2025)

The underlying substantive offences are now found in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). An affidavit is evidence, and swearing to a false affidavit constitutes perjury — punishable under provisions corresponding to Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, now Sections 227 and 229 BNS 2016 0 Supreme(All) 1415 and 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1917. Courts have repeatedly stressed that prosecutions for perjury can be initiated only on a complaint made in writing by the court itself; a private complaint is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory bar 2016 0 Supreme(All) 1415.

The Threshold: Deliberate, Material, and Conscious Falsehood

The critical question is what standard a litigant must satisfy to convince a court to launch perjury proceedings against a defendant. The settled position, carried forward from Section 340 Cr.P.C. jurisprudence, is that the court must be satisfied that the falsehood is deliberate, conscious, and material, and that a conviction is reasonably probable 2026 0 Supreme(All) 474.

The Delhi High Court in Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Karma Mindtech drew a sharp line between inconsistent versions of facts and intentional falsehoods:

A mere denial of the Plaintiffs' assertions in response to the interrogatories, without any unimpeachable evidence to the contrary or any indication of deliberate intent to mislead the Court... cannot by itself attract the rigours of perjury.

The court added that the essence of the perjury jurisdiction lies in punishing deliberate falsehoods, and not mere differences in factual narrations.

The Supreme Court's ruling in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, cited with approval in subsequent decisions, reinforces this: a denial simpliciter cannot meet the perjury threshold when no mala fide intention or deliberate attempt can be gleaned from the affidavit; mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence 2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 9615.

Expediency in the Interests of Justice — A Gatekeeping Function

Even where falsity is apparent, Section 379 BNSS demands a second finding: that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. This gatekeeping function protects litigants from weaponised criminal complaints. The Allahabad High Court in Shiva Kant Dubey v. Smt. Shikha Dubey observed that in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C., wives commonly exaggerate a husband's income, yet such exaggeration does not warrant action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (now Section 379 BNSS). As the court put it, Courts never become tools at the hands of the parties to satisfy private vendetta or to take up cudgels on behalf of one party and punish the other 2026 0 Supreme(All) 474.

A recent Madras High Court decision involving SARFAESI proceedings quashed summons issued against bank officers because the Magistrate issued them mechanically, without recording the mandatory satisfaction of expediency. Where the underlying factual dispute was already pending before the Debts Recovery Tribunal, criminal proceedings without clear proof of deliberate falsehood amounted to an abuse of process 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55025.

Timing also matters. The Delhi High Court has noted that perjury proceedings are often best reserved for the final stage of the trial, so that a criminal complaint does not hamper the fair adjudication of the civil issues 2026 0 Supreme(All) 474.

When Courts Do Initiate Perjury Proceedings

The bar is high, but not insurmountable. Courts have initiated inquiries where the record revealed conscious, unimpeachable falsity:

• A Delhi court found that a respondent had consciously averred a false statement before this Court by swearing an affidavit regarding family business arrangements and trademark rights, permitting an inquiry under Section 379 read with Sections 236, 237 and 246 BNS 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75383.
• Where a plaintiff described suit property so vaguely that it appeared fictitious, and relied on a fabricated relinquishment deed, the court held that deliberately making false statements on oath and filing forged documents strikes at the root of the judicial system and warranted criminal proceedings under Section 379(1) BNSS 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 31814.
• The Madras High Court has likewise acknowledged that a court is entitled to proceed under Section 379 BNSS where an affidavit suppresses material facts or contains false particulars 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 55025.

Procedural Safeguards and Remedies

Before making a complaint, the court must conduct a preliminary inquiry and record a reasoned finding that the offence appears committed and that prosecution is expedient

Priyadarshini Amrita Panda VS Biswajit Pati - Crimes (2025)

Practical Takeaways for Litigants

• Mere inconsistencies, exaggerations, or bald denials in an affidavit generally do not attract perjury jurisdiction.
• Applications should pinpoint the exact false statements, the BNS provisions attracted (typically Sections 227, 229, and where relevant 236, 237, 246), and the documentary proof of deliberate falsity.
• Courts discourage perjury motions used as tactical pressure during interlocutory or discovery stages.
• Where a specialised tribunal already seised of the dispute can adjudicate the alleged suppression, criminal proceedings are rarely appropriate.

Conclusion

The power to draw perjury proceedings against defendants under Section 379 BNSS for filing and swearing false affidavits in a civil suit is real but carefully hedged. Courts will act only where the falsehood is deliberate, material to the dispute, and where prosecution serves the interests of justice — never as an instrument of private vendetta. Litigants weighing such applications should evaluate the strength of their evidence realistically, and this overview is general information that may vary with the facts of each case.