Recently, 2024, the Supreme Court clarified that the mere presence of suspicion, inaccurate statements, or simple denials without any malicious intent do not constitute the crime of perjury. 

A bench consisting of Justices B.R. Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and K.V. Vishwanathan overturned a Uttarakhand High Court order dated October 1, 2022, which had directed the initiation of perjury proceedings against James Kunjwal. The High Court had previously observed that Kunjwal had deliberately submitted a false affidavit in the context of bail cancellation proceedings in a rape case, which was allegedly filed under false pretenses of marriage. Following this order, a complaint under Section 193 of the IPC was lodged with the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Nainital.

Before the Supreme Court, Kunjwal’s counsel argued that simply denying the allegations made in court pleadings does not constitute perjury. They also argued that a court is not obligated to file a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless it deems it necessary for the interest of justice.

The respondent-complainant argued that Kunjwal had misrepresented facts, including continuing a relationship despite his marriage being arranged with another person and forcing the complainant to terminate a pregnancy.

The Supreme Court examined whether the affidavit’s content constituted an offence under Section 193 (punishment for false evidence) of the IPC, as defined by Section 191 (giving false evidence). It noted that Section 195(b)(1) of the CrPC restricts courts from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205-211 unless a written complaint is made by the court or an authorized officer. Section 340 details the procedures for such prosecutions.

The bench outlined several principles for initiating perjury proceedings:

1. The court must have a prima facie opinion that sufficient grounds exist to proceed against the person alleged to have made a false statement.
2. Proceedings should be initiated if it is deemed expedient in the interest of justice to penalize the individual, not merely due to inaccuracies that are immaterial or innocent.
3. There must be deliberate falsehoods on substantial matters.
4. There should be a reasonable basis for the charge, supported by distinct evidence rather than mere suspicion.
5. Proceedings should only be initiated in exceptional cases, such as when perjury results in beneficial court orders.

The bench concluded that the statements in the affidavit were merely Kunjwal’s version of events or denials of the complainant’s claims. The court emphasized that a simple denial does not meet the threshold for perjury, especially in the absence of any malicious intent. The court also noted that the respondent did not provide specific allegations or material evidence relevant to the current adjudication.

Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the perjury proceedings.