Perjury proceedings can't be initiated in every case: HC

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, August 12

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that perjury proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC are not to be initiated in “every case where the offences are purportedly made out”. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi of the High Court further ruled that a false statement resulting in a favourable order was one of the circumstances where perjury proceedings were required to be initiated.

If the false statement affects the very nature of the order passed by the court, that itself can be one of the circumstances, where proceedings under Section 340 CrPC ought to be initiated. Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi

The ruling by Justice Bedi came on a petition seeking the quashing of orders dismissing an application and an appeal filed by the petitioner for registering a complaint against his brothers for “using as true such declaration knowing it to be false” and other offences under Section 191, 192, 193, 199, 200, 209 and 120-B of the IPC.

Justice Bedi’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioner had filed a civil suit for possession by way of partition and permanent injunction against his brothers in 2012. The respondent-brothers filed their written statement, wherein they purportedly denied the petitioner’s ownership of the land wilfully and intentionally.

The civil suit was decreed and decided in the petitioner’s favour before he filed an application under Section 340, read with Section 195 of the CrPC, for registering a complaint against the respondents for making a false complaint in the court, knowing the same to be false. But Phul Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application. The appeal against the order, too, was dismissed by the Bathinda Additional Sessions Judge.

Justice Bedi asserted the civil suit, in which alleged false affidavit was filed, was decreed in the petitioner’s favour. But the court nowhere gave a finding that the respondent-brothers deliberately committed any offence, took a false plea in the written statement, or filed a wrong sworn affidavit while appearing in the witness box. In fact, reference for initiating the proceedings was not made by the court while decreeing the suit.

Justice Bedi added one of the situations for proceeding under Section 340 would be where a party succeeded in getting a favourable order due to a false statement, which otherwise would not have been possible.

“Therefore, if the false statement affects the very nature of the order passed by the court, that itself can be one of the circumstances, where proceedings under Section 340 CrPC ought to be initiated. In the present case, assuming that a false statement had been made either in the written statement or by virtue of filing of affidavits, those pleadings/averments did not affect the fate of the case. In fact, the petitioner did obtain a decree in his favour. Therefore, there is no apparent illegality in the orders,” Justice Bedi concluded.