14 August 2024 - Legal Updates

1. Section 193 IPC When can perjury Proceedings Be Initiated Against A Litigant Supreme Court Explains

While quashing a perjury proceeding against a litigant, the Supreme Court laid down the yardsticks which should be fulfilled for initiating proceedings for the offence of perjury under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justices Sanjay Karol and KV Viswanathan was deciding an appeal preferred by a litigant against the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court directing the registration of a complaint under Section 193 of IPC against the appellant for filing a false affidavit before the Court in a bail cancellation proceeding.

The appellant was an accused in a case of rape over a false pretext of marriage. He was granted bail by the High Court. The complainant in the rape case thereafter filed an application to cancel the bail.

The High Court rejected the bail cancellation plea but issued directions for the registration of FIR for an offence of perjury, in view of certain inconsistencies between the affidavits of the complainant and the appellant.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that mere denial of the averments in the pleadings would not constitute the offence of perjury. Further, it was urged that a Court is not “bound” to make a complaint under Section 195(1) (b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, unless it believes that it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so.

In the counter affidavit, it was claimed that the appellant had misrepresented and twisted certain facts, which reasonably amounts to committing an act of perjury.

Based on the settled precedents, the Judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol developed the yardsticks that need to be fulfilled to book a person for the offence of perjury: -

"(i) The Court should be of the prima facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against the person who has allegedly made a false statement(s);

(ii) Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is “expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent” and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be innocent/immaterial;

(iii) There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;

(iv) The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion;

(v) Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the Court.”

The judgment clarified that at least three of the above yardsticks must be fulfilled for the Court to initiate proceedings.

"We find that at least three of the possible scenarios, as discussed supra, in which a court would be justified in invoking these powers on the face of it appear to be unmet, prosecution, therefore, would be unjust"

The Court said that since the statements made in the affidavit were only to state his (appellant's) version of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant, therefore mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under Section 193 of IPC.

“We are also of the firm opinion that such statements do not make it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which such Sections may be invoked. Given that these proceedings would constitute an offence, independent of the one for which the appellant is already facing trial, it cannot be unequivocally held that there was deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance.” the court said.

“We are of the view that, in the present facts, a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, as described in the judgments above, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the appellant (accused) in the affidavit.”, the court said.

Accordingly, the direction of the High Court of Uttarakhand in regard to registering a complaint against the present appellant was set aside.

Case- James Kunjwal vs. State of Uttarakhand

2. Recover Compensation From Officers Who Demolished Buildings Ignoring Status Quo Order: Supreme Court Slams Patna Authorities

The Supreme Court has come down heavily on the authorities of the Patna Municipal Corporation and the District Administration for demolishing certain structures ignoring a status quo order passed by the court.

In this case, the petitioners were aggrieved by the directions of the demolition of the houses and buildings constructed by them allegedly on public land.

The petitioners had filed writ petition before the High Court challenging the eviction orders passed under section 11 of the Bihar Public Land Encroachment Act, 1956. However, the High Court denied them relief following which they approached the Supreme Court.

The following interim orders were passed by the Supreme Court-

1. Issue notice, returnable
2. Meanwhile the statutory appeal, the parties are directed to maintain status quo re: demolition and further construction at the site
3. The appellate authority-cum-District Magistrate, Patna is directed to decide the pending appeal in accordance with law within six weeks and submit a compliance report to the High Court.

A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Vishwanathan found that despite the directions to maintain status quo, the demolition drive continued and all constructions have been demolished. It remarked that the “only explanation rendered on behalf of respondents is that the status quo order passed by this court was subject to the pendency of the statutory appeals and such appeals had been already been decided.

Considering this, the Supreme Court said: “We strongly deprecate the conduct of the Authorities and their lame excuse. If the statutory appeals had already been decided, it was imperative for them to move an appropriate application and seek vacation/modification of the order. A District Magistrate or the Municipal Authorities cannot sit over the interim orders of this Court and continue with an exercise despite the restraint order."

The Supreme Court disposed of the SLP since the appeals challenging the eviction orders are pending before the High Court and requested the Court to decide the petitions objectively without being influenced by the directions passed in the PIL jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court has directed the State authorities to pay compensation to the petitioners irrespective of the outcome of the writ petitions. It said: "We further direct that the petitioners shall be entitled to compensation/damages for the demolition of their structures, irrespective of any result of the writ petitions. We are granting this compensation in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case to maintain the majesty of law as there is a willful and deliberate defiance of the interim order. The amount of compensation, however, shall be determined by the High Court. The Chief Secretary of the State is directed to recover the amount of damages as may be paid to the petitioners, from the officers of the Patna Municipal Corporation or the District Administration, who are found responsible for defying the order."

Case- Ajay Rai & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.