NDLI: James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	False affidavit False evidence Inaccurate statements Deliberate falsehood False statement Perjury False statement made on oath or in affidavits Section 191 of Penal Code 1860 Section 195(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Section 193 of Penal Code 1860
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5 Referred Case 6 Referred Case 7
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 – ss.191, 193 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Allegation of filing a false affidavit – Appellant was made accused in an FIR registered u/s. 376 & s.504 of IPC – High Court granted bail to the appellant – Complainant filed bail cancellation application – By order dated 01.10.2022, the High Court dismissed the bail cancellation application and observed that appellant had intentionally filed a false affidavit before the High Court:Held: The three essential factors which can be said to be sine qua non for the application of Section 193 IPC are (1) false statement made on oath or in affidavits; (2) that such statements be made in a judicial proceeding; or (3) such statement be made before an authority that has been expressly deemed to be a ‘Court’ – The statement made by the appellant, that has been deemed to be befitting the offence of giving false evidence before the Court, which is known commonly as perjury, was more in the nature of denial of the statements made in the affidavits of the complainant herein – In the instant case, a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the appellant in the affidavit – Mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under the Section 193 of IPC – It cannot be disputed that the statements made in the affidavit were only to state his version of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant – Also, such statements do not make it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which such Sections may be invoked – The three of the possible scenarios, as discussed, 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 – Consequently, the direction of the High Court in regard to registering a complaint against the present appellant is set aside. [Paras 17, 18, 19, 20, 21]Penal Code, 1860 – ss.191, 193 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.195(1)(b) – Perjury – False statement – Deliberate falsehood – When the Court should initiate proceedings against a person, who has allegedly made a false statement:Held: (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. [Para 16]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol
Neutral Citation	2024 INSC 601
Petitioner	James Kunjwal
Respondent	State Of Uttarakhand & Anr.
SCR	[2024] 8 S.C.R. 332
Judgement Date	2024-08-13
Case Number	3350

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Lalji Haridas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Iqbal Singh Narang & Ors. Vs. Veeran Narang

Kunwarpal @ Surajpal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Khim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Bhatnagar Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Vs. State of Haryana

Ranjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Sh. Narendra Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

Lalji Haridas Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another

Iqbal Singh Narang & Ors. Vs. Veeran Narang

Kunwarpal @ Surajpal & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.

Khim Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Rajesh Bhatnagar Vs. State of Uttarakhand

Dinesh Vs. State of Haryana

Ranjit Singh Vs. The State of Punjab

Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab and Ors.

James Kunjwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.