Supreme Court of India
JAMES KUNJWALversusSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 601
- Decided
- 13 August 2024
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
A denial of the complainant's version in an affidavit, absent deliberate falsehood or malafide intent, does not meet the threshold for perjury under Section 193 IPC, and therefore the High Court's direction to register a complaint is unwarranted.
Summary
The appellant, James Kunjwal, was accused of offences under Sections 376 and 504 IPC and was granted bail by the High Court. The complainant sought cancellation of bail, alleging that Kunjwal had filed a false affidavit contradicting her statements. The High Court, finding the affidavit intentionally false, directed the registrar to file a complaint against Kunjwal under Section 193 IPC. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the denial of the complainant's version in an affidavit amounted to perjury under Sections 191 and 193 IPC and whether the High Court was justified in ordering prosecution. The Court held that a simple denial without proof of deliberate falsehood or malafide intent does not satisfy the threshold for perjury, and that prosecution must be expedient in the interest of justice. Consequently, the direction to register a complaint was set aside and the appeal was allowed, without affecting the pending criminal trial.
Issues considered
- Whether the statements made by the appellant in the affidavit constitute an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code as defined in Section 191.
- Whether the High Court was justified in directing the filing of a complaint under Section 193 IPC against the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 195(1)(b)
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 191, s. 193
Subjects
PerjuryFalse evidenceFalse affidavitFalse statementDeliberate falsehoodInaccurate statementsSection 191 of Penal Code, 1860Section 193 of Penal Code, 1860Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Judgment
[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 Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmad Qureshi
[2019] 3 SCR 400 : (2019) 18 SCC 172 – referred to.
334 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
List of Keywords
Perjury; False evidence; False affidavit; False statement; False
statement made on oath or in affidavits; Deliberate falsehood;
Inaccurate statements; Section 191 of Penal Code, 1860; Section
193 of Penal Code, 1860; Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3350
of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.10.2022 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in BCA No.24 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Ms. Sweta Rani, Adv. for the Appellant.
Mrs. Madhur Panjwani, Ankit Shah, Manan Verma, Advs. for the
Respondents.
Respondent No.2-in-person.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
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 :-
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 335
James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
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
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:
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
336 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“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 Marwah.5
7. In the counter affidavit it has been claimed that the appellant has
misrepresented and twisted certain facts, for instance, that he
continued to have relations with the 2nd Respondent despite his
marriage being fixed with someone else; that the appellant had forced
the complainant to terminate her pregnancy etc. The respondent, in
view of the above, has submitted that the High Court was justified
in directing the filing of the complaint against the appellant. At this
juncture, for ready reference, we extract the relevant portion of
what the complainant had said in her bail cancellation application.
It reads as under:-
“9 That the applicant want to seek the kind attention of
the Hon’ble court that on today’s date. It is evident and
obvious that the personal status of the applicant and her
family would be again in knowledge of the accused but
still accused James Kunjwal is chasing applicant opting
various ways, asking and pressurizing her to settle down
the case by stating that he loves applicant, giving her love
proposal, asking her to meet, to call etc and also sending
5 [2005] 2 SCR 708 : (2005) 4 SCC 370
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 337
James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
obscene text, and status to applicant and on denial by
the applicant and asking him to put his words before the
respected hon’ble court and trial court started abusing
her and her family badly also talking obscene to her. For
the kind perusal of this Hon’ble court a true photo copy of
the WhatsApp messages and status text and instagram
messages are being filed herewith and marked as Annexure
No.7 to this bail cancellation application.
10. That being aggrieved by the aforesaid objectionable
activities of the accused the applicant/complainant made
a complaint before the police station - kathgodam on 24-
7-2022. For the kind perusal of this Hon’ble court a true
photo copy of the complaint letter along with its type copy
is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.8 to
this bail cancellation application.
11. That pursuant to this complaint the accused was
called at police station and before police station he made
a statement that he made a statement he will not repeat
the any action in any manner but after returning from
the police station when he reach his home the accused
again started abusing her badly and also passing obscene
comments to applicant through Whatsapp text status. For
the kind perusal of this Hon’ble court a true photo copy of
the whatsapp text status is being filed herewith and marked
as Annexure No.9 to this bail cancellation application.
12. That despite the promise made before the police
station the accused did not stop the sending 10 abusing
watsapp status messages therefore she again informed to
the concerned police station kathgodam, on the perusal of
which they called accused again where he accepted that
he is doing this intentionally therefore police gave warning
to him not to repeat the same again and again and police
told the applicant that thought they can lodge the F.I.R.
against the accused but the applicant cannot proof just on
the basis of the various messages through social media
platforms (WhatsApp and Instagram).”
8. In response thereto, the appellant in his affidavit had averred as
under :
338 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“9. That the contents of the para no 9 are denied.
10. That the contents of the Para no 10 are matter of
record and hence need no comments.
11. That the contents of the para no 10, 11 & 12 are
denied. That the no such incident took place in the Police
station and there is no material evidence to prove this.
The respondent no 2 did not approach the applicant in
fact it was the applicant who messaged and abused the
respondent no.2 and communicated said indecent things
about respondent no.2. The applicant alleged regarding
depicting whatsapp status, but the respondent no2 denies
communicating the status to the applicant. It is pertinent
to mention here that Whatsapp status is not a message
and is not sent or deliver to a specific person. It requires
positive act by viewer to look into somebody status which
is his own privacy. If someone is seeing a whatsapp
status than that person is invading/barging into the privacy
of other person who has allegedly depicted his status.
Thus it cannot be said that respondent no.2 somehow
threatened or abused the applicant. It is a case where the
applicant is hoodwinking the whole process, moreover the
applicant has not mentioned on which dates these status
were uploaded, the applicant is just using these random
screenshot to file a frivolous case.”
9. Hence, in the attending facts, the short question that falls for
consideration of this Court is whether the contents of the affidavit
filed before the High Court, as taken note of in the impugned order,
constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC, as defined in Section
191 IPC?
10. Section 191 IPC which defines the offence, reads as under :-
“191. Giving false evidence. Whoever, being legally
bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state
the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration
upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and
which he either knows or believes to be false or does not
believe to be true, is said to give false evidence.
Explanation 1.— A statement is within the meaning of this
section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise.
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 339
James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
Explanation 2.— A false statement as to the belief of the
person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and
a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating
that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as
well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does
not know.”
Section 193 IPC, under which the appellant is sought to be prosecuted
is extracted below for reference.
“193. Punishment For False Evidence. Whoever
intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial
proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose
of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates
false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1. - A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial
proceeding.
Explanation 2. - An investigation directed by law preliminary
to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of
a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not
take place before a Court of Justice.”
11. Section 195(b)(1) of Cr.P.C. (relevant portion reproduced hereinbelow)
provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence committed
under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205-211; except on the complaint
in writing of the Court or by an officer of the Court, duly authorized.
Section 340 mentions the procedure in respect of the prosecution
as delineated under Section 195.
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of
public servants, for offences against public justice
and for offences relating to documents given in
evidence.—(1) No Court shall take cognizance—
(a) ……
340 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following
sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely,
sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211
(both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to
have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding
in any Court, or
(ii) …..
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to
commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-
clause (i) or sub-clause (ii)…
(2) …
(3) …
(4) …”
12. The proper approach in cases where Section 193 is in play, it has
been held by this Court in Dr. S.P. Kohli, Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur
v. High Court of Haryana Through Registrar 6 as under :
“16. It is true that what the courts have to see before
issuing the process against the accused is whether there
is evidence in support of the allegations made by the
complainant to justify the initiation of proceedings against
the accused and not whether the evidence is sufficient
to warrant his conviction, but this does not mean that
the courts should not prima facie be of the opinion that
there are sufficient and reasonable grounds for setting the
machinery of criminal law in motion against the accused.
The moment this guiding principle is overlooked, the
prosecution degenerates itself into persecution which often
is fraught with evil consequences.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Referred to in Himanshu Kumar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh
& Ors.7
6 [1979] 1 SCR 722 : (1979) 1 SCC 212
7 [2022] 11 SCR 724 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 884
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 341
James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
13. When prosecution should be sanctioned under this Section by Courts
has been expounded on by a Bench of three learned Judges in
Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam & Anr.8
“7. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by
courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be
deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably
probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and
filing false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively
curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for
perjury too readily and too frequently without due care
and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material
defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered
when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice
to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is
some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent
or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate
falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should
be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the
charge…”
(Emphasis supplied)
Referred to in Himanshu Kumar (supra); Narendra Kumar
Srivastava v. State of Bihar & Ors.9
14. In this regard we may also notice the pronouncement in R.S. Sujatha
v. State of Karnataka,10 referred to in Aarish Asgar Qureshi v.
Fareed Ahmad Qureshi 11 wherein it was observed :
“9. Both these judgments were referred to and relied upon
with approval in R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka [R.S.
Sujatha v. State of Karnataka (2011) 5 SCC 689 : (2011)
2 SCC (Cri) 757] (at paras 15 and 16). This court, after
setting down the law laid down in these two judgments
concluded : (SCC pp. 694-95, para 18)
8 [1971] Supp. 1 SCR 172 : (1971) 1 SCC 774
9 [2019] 2 SCR 643 : (2019) 3 SCC 318
10 [2010] 14 SCR 227 : (2011) 5 SCC 689
11 [2019] 3 SCR 400 : (2019) 18 SCC 172
342 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
“18. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the inquiry/
contempt proceedings should be initiated by the
court in exceptional circumstances where the court
is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by
a party deliberately to have some beneficial order
from the court. There must be grounds of a nature
higher than mere surmise or suspicion for initiating
such proceedings. There must be distinct evidence
of the commission of an offence by such a person
as mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge
of perjury. More so, the court has also to determine
as on facts, whether it is expedient in the interest of
justice to inquire into the offence which appears to
have been committed.”
(Emphasis supplied)
15. The three essential factors which can be said to be sine qua non for
the application of Section 193 IPC as held in Bhima Razu Prasad
v. State Rep. by Deputy Supdt. of Police, CBI/SPE/ACU-II 12 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’.
16. What we may conclude from a perusal of the above-noticed judicial
pronouncements is that:-
(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”;
12 [2021] 2 SCR 1020 : (2021) 19 SCC 25
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 343
James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.
(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.
17. 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.
18. We are of the view that, in the present facts, a denial simpliciter cannot
meet the threshold, as described in the judgments above, particularly
when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood
from the statement made by the appellant in the affidavit. As has
already been observed, mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do
not attract the offence under the Section. It cannot be disputed that
the statements made in the affidavit were only to state his version
of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant.
19. We are also of the firm opinion that such statements do not make
it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional
circumstances in which such Sections may be invoked. Given that
these proceedings would constitute an offence, independent of
the one for which the appellant is already facing trial, it cannot be
unequivocally held that there was deliberate falsehood on a matter
of substance.
20. We find that at least three of the possible scenarios, as discussed
supra, 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. We say so for the reason that the respondent in her counter
affidavit filed before this Court makes no particular allegation nor
does she provide any of the material that was allegedly placed before
the competent prosecuting authorities or the Court. She only alleges
untruth on the part of the appellant 8/12/2024 stating that the Court
was correct in initiating proceedings against him for making the false
statement. She further makes certain statements that fall outside the
scope of the present adjudication and pertain to the trial of the main
offence pending before the court of competent jurisdiction.
344 [2024] 8 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
21. Consequent to the above discussion, we set aside the direction of
the High Court of Uttarakhand in regard to registering a complaint
against the present appellant. Any proceedings arising therefrom
shall stand quashed. The appeal is, accordingly allowed. Before
parting with the matter, it stands clarified that the decision in this
appeal shall have no bearing on the criminal case pending against
the appellant which shall proceed on its own merits as per law.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Perjury"Sign in to search