Summary
The Supreme Court set aside a High Court direction to its Registrar (Judicial) to file a perjury complaint against an accused whose affidavit opposing bail cancellation merely denied the complainant's allegations, holding that a bare denial setting out one's own version is not deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and that prosecution was not expedient in the interests of justice; the resulting complaint under Section 193 IPC was quashed.
Issues
- Whether the appellant's affidavit, which denied the complainant's averments in a bail cancellation application, disclosed the offence of giving false evidence under Section 193 read with Section 191 IPC.
- When a court should direct a complaint for perjury under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 191, Indian Penal Code, 1860The Court set out the definition of giving false evidence (a false statement made by one legally bound to state the truth, known or believed to be false) and held that the appellant's denial of the complainant's version, made to state his own version, did not meet it. (¶¶ 9, 10, 17, 18)
- Section 193, Indian Penal Code, 1860The complaint filed on the High Court's direction was under this section. The Court noted the essential elements (a false statement on oath or affidavit, made in a judicial proceeding or before an authority deemed a court) and held that mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence. (¶¶ 5, 9, 10, 15, 18)
- Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Cognizance of an offence under Section 193 IPC committed in relation to court proceedings requires a written complaint by the court or its authorised officer, with Section 340 laying down the procedure; the Court held that such a complaint should be made only on a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood and when expedient in the interests of justice. (¶¶ 6, 11, 16, 19, 20)
Held
- Drawing on S.P. Kohli, Chajoo Ram, R.S. Sujatha and Bhima Razu Prasad, the Court summarised the tests for initiating perjury proceedings: a prima facie view that sufficient and reasonable grounds exist; expediency in the interests of justice rather than mere innocent or immaterial inaccuracy; deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance; a reasonable foundation for the charge resting on distinct evidence, not suspicion; and exceptional circumstances, such as perjury to obtain a beneficial order. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
- The appellant's statements were in substance a denial of the complainant's averments and a statement of his own version of events. A denial simpliciter, with no discernible mala fide or deliberate attempt to mislead, does not meet the threshold for prosecution for giving false evidence. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- The statements did not make prosecution expedient in the interests of justice or present exceptional circumstances; since the perjury charge would be an offence independent of the trial the appellant already faced, deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance could not be held established. (¶ 19)
- At least three of the conditions for invoking the power were unmet; the complainant's counter affidavit made no specific allegation and produced no supporting material, and largely raised matters belonging to the pending trial, so prosecution would be unjust. (¶ 20)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court's direction to file a complaint against the appellant set aside and proceedings arising from it quashed; clarified that the decision has no bearing on the pending criminal case, which will proceed on its merits.