Not every false statement warrants perjury proceedings: High Court

Tribune News Service

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, April 28

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that not every false statement warrants perjury proceedings, especially when there is no deliberate attempt to mislead. Justice Harpreet Singh Brar, at the same time, called for a balanced approach where litigants responsible for inaccuracies were held accountable through proportional costs.

“Every incorrect and false statement lacking deliberate attempt to mislead the court does not need to be addressed exclusively by initiation of perjury proceedings. The ends of justice would be met if the litigant making such incorrect statement is burdened with costs, proportional to facts and circumstances of each case. The courts must separate the chaff from the grain to ensure that the stream of justice is not clogged by ill-intended, vexatious proceedings,” he asserted.

The Bench was hearing a petition against an impugned order dated December 16, 2023, passed by Sonepat Family Court, vide which a staffer was directed to file a complaint for perjury and other offences on its behalf against petitioner’s wife in a matrimonial dispute. The petitioner, seeking the grant of maintenance under Section 125, CrPC, had claimed in an affidavit that she was unemployed, while she was working with a bank for the past four years.

Justice Brar said, at times, allowing minor irregularities to be remedied was “more advantageous” to the cause of justice than initiating separate proceedings. Proceedings under Section 340, CrPC, could be reasonably initiated only when a conscious attempt was made to mislead the court in “an overpowering fashion to get a favourable result”.

Justice Brar asserted that sufficient material was required to be available on record to indicate conspicuous and intentional nature of the alleged falsehood. Mere inaccuracy or misstatement would remain inadequate for launching such prosecution.

The court was required to sanction prosecution for perjury only in cases where it appeared that conviction was “reasonably probable and breaches the threshold for the charge of deliberate and conscious falsehood”.

“The court must consider the magnitude of the obstruction caused by the alleged offence to the administration of justice. It must also be seen if such falsehood has any impact on the outcome of the case,” Justice Brar observed.

Remedy minor irregularities

Justice Brar said at times, allowing minor irregularities to be remedied was “more advantageous” to the cause of justice than initiating separate proceedings.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.