Supreme Court Reverses High Court Ruling: No Grounds for Perjury Charge Against James Kunjwal.
13 August 2024
Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law | FIR >> Criminal Law
In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal and set aside a controversial order from the High Court of Uttarakhand, which had directed the filing of a perjury complaint against James Kunjwal. The High Court's decision stemmed from a bail cancellation application where Kunjwal was accused of submitting a false affidavit.
Background of the Case:
The case traces back to FIR No. 109 of 2021, where Kunjwal was accused under Sections 376 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by a complainant identified as ‘X’. The complainant alleged that Kunjwal had established a relationship with her under false pretenses, claiming intentions of marriage, which ultimately did not materialize.
Initially, Kunjwal's bail application was rejected by a District and Sessions Judge. However, the High Court granted him bail in June 2021. The complainant later filed a bail cancellation application, asserting that Kunjwal had made contradictory statements and had misled the court.
High Court's Findings:
In its judgment on October 1, 2022, the High Court dismissed the bail cancellation application but controversially stated that Kunjwal had intentionally filed a false affidavit. The court requested the Registrar to file a complaint against him, citing the necessity to address the alleged falsehood.
Supreme Court's Rationale:
Upon reviewing the case, the Supreme Court emphasized that a mere denial of allegations in affidavits does not equate to perjury. The Court underscored the need for a "deliberate falsehood" and a clear intent to mislead for a perjury charge to be justified.
The Supreme Court further noted that the statements made by Kunjwal were essentially a denial of the complainant’s claims and did not exhibit any malafide intent. In line with prior judicial precedents, the Court reiterated that proceedings for perjury should only be initiated in exceptional circumstances, primarily when the alleged falsehood affects the court’s decisions significantly.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court's ruling quashes the High Court's order for a perjury complaint against Kunjwal, affirming that his statements did not meet the threshold necessary to constitute an offence under Section 193 of the IPC. The appeal has been allowed, but it is important to note that this decision does not impact the ongoing criminal case against Kunjwal, which will continue on its merits. This ruling serves as a reminder of the judicial system's commitment to ensuring that charges of perjury are not invoked lightly and that defendants are afforded fair treatment under the law.