High time courts took action over false statements: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 4

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that the courts are required to take strong action in cases of perjury to curb unwarranted litigation. A Division Bench also made it clear that the fundamental rights enjoyed by the citizens were coupled with obligation and duty to come out with the truth in a court of law.

Duty-bound to speak the truth

The citizens of the country have a right to lodge complaint for an offence, grievance or hurt caused to them. They are also duty-bound to speak the truth in the court of law. HC Bench

The Bench of Justice Augustine George Masih and Justice Alok Jain also made it clear that it was not mandatory to afford an opportunity of hearing, while initiating perjury proceeding under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the CrPC.

The ruling came on two petitions challenging an order passed by a trial court for initiating proceedings against witnesses after they did not support the prosecution case. The trial court had concluded that the witnesses during the investigation had stated a different version by involving all the accused in a crime. But they totally resiled from their earlier version with a mala fide intention to save the accused from the rigors of law after appearing in the witness box before deposing on oath.

The Bench asserted the offence allegedly affected the court proceedings. As such, a court was well-empowered to either conduct an inquiry or to get it conducted. It could also form an opinion to initiate the proceedings in presence of enough material on record. There was no statutory requirement or legal obligation cast on the court or the authorities concerned to afford an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused against whom the magistrate might initiate the prosecution proceedings.

The Bench observed: “It has become a trend these days that FIRs are lodged and the criminal proceedings are initiated. During the investigation, statements are made by the witnesses. However for reasons known best to the witnesses, when they appear for their testimony before the competent court of law, they resile from the statements. In many cases, the statements (before a magistrate) made under Section 164 of CrPC are also resiled.”

The Bench added the witnesses turning hostile ultimately left the court high and dry to decide the cases truthfully as the evidence required was shattered or eroded. The courts were burdened with cases found to be untrue, leading to financial burdened on the tax payers. Besides this, the genuine cases were delayed due to such pendency.

“The citizens of the country have a right to lodge complaint for an offence, grievance or hurt caused to them. They are also duty-bound to speak the truth in the court of law. It is high time that the courts strongly take action for making the false statements in the courts of law to protect the citizen from unnecessary/unwanted litigation,” the Bench added, while dismissing the plea.