Supreme Court Reviews Perjury Charges Against Appelants. Examining the boundaries of judicial discretion in initiating perjury proceedings.


Summary of Judgement

This judgment revolves around the appeal by appellant against an order of the High Court of Uttarakhand. The High Court, while dismissing a bail cancellation application, observed that Kunjwal had intentionally filed a false affidavit and directed the Registrar to file a complaint against him under Section 193 of the IPC for perjury. The Supreme Court examined whether the contents of the affidavit constituted an offense under Section 193 IPC and highlighted the conditions under which courts should sanction prosecution for perjury.

1. Background of the Case:

The case originated when James Kunjwal was accused of establishing a relationship with the complainant under the false pretext of marriage, leading to the filing of an FIR. He was granted bail by the High Court of Uttarakhand, but the complainant sought cancellation of the bail, citing contradictory statements by Kunjwal.

2. High Court's Observation:

The High Court dismissed the bail cancellation but observed that Kunjwal had intentionally filed a false affidavit, directing a complaint to be filed against him for perjury under Section 193 IPC.

3. Appeal to the Supreme Court:

Kunjwal appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that mere denial of allegations does not constitute perjury. The Court deliberated on the conditions under which prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned, referring to precedents and legal principles.

4. Legal Framework:

The judgment explored the provisions of Section 191 IPC (False Evidence) and Section 193 IPC (Punishment for False Evidence), along with the procedural aspects under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. The Court emphasized that perjury prosecution should only be pursued in clear cases of deliberate falsehood, with a reasonable probability of conviction.

5. Conclusion:

The Supreme Court's decision underscored the need for judicial restraint in initiating perjury proceedings, ensuring that such actions are taken only when there is a substantial and deliberate attempt to mislead the court. The appeal was considered within this framework, evaluating whether the High Court's directive was justified.

The Judgement

Case Title: JAMES KUNJWAL Versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANR.

Citation: 2024 LawText (SC) (8) 132

Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO………. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.9783/2023)

Date of Decision: 2024-08-13