IN CSOS 1 OF 2017 - CAL HC- Prosecution for perjury be sanctioned by Courts only in cases where perjury appeared to be deliberate,where it would be expedient in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement: Calcutta High Court
Justice Krishna Rao [22-06-2023]

Read more: Prochy N. Mehta v. NoshirTankariwala

Simran Singh

New Delhi, June 27, 2023:  The Calcutta High Court dismissed a petition preferred by the Parsi ZoroastrianAssociation, Calcutta which had sought initiation of proceeding under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the plaintiffs for commission of offence under Section 193 and 209 of the Indian Panel Code, 1860. The Court stated that the materials brought on record wereinsufficient andinadequate to justify the conclusion that it wasexpedient, in the interest of justice, to file a complaint.

The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Krishna Rao stated that the Court had to be satisfied as to the prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence under the provision of Cr.P.C. "The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings.”

It was viewed that the Court had to form an opinion that it was expedient, in the interests of justice, to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) Cr.P.C., having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. “The Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.”

The Court observed that it had been consistently held by the Court that prosecution for perjury be sanctioned by the Courts only in those cases where perjury appeared to be deliberate and that prosecution ought to be ordered where it would be expedient, in the interest of justice, to punish the delinquent and not merely because there was some inaccuracy in the statement.

In the matter at hand, it was alleged that after the demise of defendant 1, the Parsi Zoroastrian community held an online memorial service for him where both plaintiff 1 and her husband spoke on the said occasion. Another online memorial service was held and the said event was streamed live on youtube wherein it was proved that the plaintiffs were present on the said memorial service through on online mode.

It was submitted that the averments made by the plaintiffs that only after the receipt of the copy of pleadings, the plaintiffs enquired about the death of the defendant 1 was misleading and that the plaintiffs had made false statement on affidavit before this Court thus committing an offence under the provisions of IPC.

The Bench navigated through the provision of Section 340 of CrPC which provided for procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 CrPC. It further referred to the Supreme Court case of K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India which had held thatprovisions of Section 340 of CrPC were alluded only for the purpose of showing that necessary care and caution was to be taken before initiating a criminal proceeding for perjury against the deponent of contradictory statements in a judicial proceeding.

Further the Bench relied upon the Supreme Court case of State NCT Delhi v Pankaj Chaudhary which had held that “there are two preconditions for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

(i) materials produced before the court must make out a prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C., and

(ii) it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence.”

The Court was of the view that in the process of formation of the said opinion by the Court, the requirement should only be to have a prima facie satisfaction of the offence which appeared to have been committed. “It is open to the Court to hold a preliminary inquiry though it is not mandatory. In case, the Court is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion, that it appears to the Court that an offence as referred to under Section 340 of Cr.P.C has been committed, the Court may dispense with the preliminary inquiry. Even after forming an opinion as to the offence which appears to have been committed also, it is not mandatory that a complaint should be filed as a matter of course.”

The Bench noted that the main contention of the applicants was that the plaintiffs had made a false averment in the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs. It was the contention of the applicants that the plaintiffs had the knowledge about the death of defendant 1 but in the affidavit, the plaintiffs had stated that after only receipt of the copy of pleadings, the plaintiffs had enquired about the death of the defendant 1.

The Bench was thus of the view that it was settled law that mere fact that a person had made contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding was not by itself always sufficient to justify the prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of IPC but it must be shown that the defendant had intentionally given a false statement in any stage of judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of judicial proceedings. Even after the above position had emerged also, still the Court had to form an opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against the public justice as referred in Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. The Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required, in the interest of justice, and appropriate in the facts of the case.