The Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, has dismissed an application seeking perjury proceedings under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), reiterating that such action is warranted only when the alleged falsehood has a direct impact on the administration of justice. The ruling was delivered by Justice Om Prakash Shukla, who emphasized that perjury laws should not be invoked merely on the basis of inaccuracies unless they significantly affect judicial proceedings.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a dispute between Bharatendu Pratap Singh (applicant) and Rajeev Krishna & two others (opposite parties), who are senior government officials. The applicant alleged that the opposite parties deliberately prepared false questionnaires under the General Rules (Criminal), 1977, despite knowing the information they contained was incorrect. Singh argued that this act amounted to an offense under Sections 191, 192, 196, and 199 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sought an inquiry under Section 340 CrPC for perjury.
However, both the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Lucknow, and the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Lucknow, rejected the application. The applicant then challenged these orders before the High Court through Application U/S 482 No. 743 of 2025.
Legal Issues Involved
1. Whether the alleged false questionnaire constituted perjury under Section 340 CrPC.
2. Whether the questionnaire was used in judicial proceedings, thereby meeting the threshold under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC.
3. Whether the perjury action was “expedient in the interest of justice”, as required under judicial precedents.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Om Prakash Shukla held that perjury proceedings can only be initiated when the alleged falsehood has a direct bearing on court proceedings. The judge referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. (2024) 8 SCR 332, which laid down strict guidelines for initiating perjury actions. The Court stated:
“Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to obtain beneficial orders from the Court.”
The Court further relied on the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370, clarifying that offenses under Sections 193 to 200 IPC must be directly linked to judicial proceedings for Section 340 CrPC to apply.
The High Court noted that the applicant failed to demonstrate how the questionnaire was used to obtain a judicial benefit or influence a court’s decision. It observed:
“The alleged falsehood must have a direct correlation with the administration of justice. In the absence of such an effect, invoking perjury laws would be unwarranted.”
The Court emphasized that false documents or misleading statements, unless they materially impact judicial outcomes, do not automatically warrant perjury proceedings.
Conclusion
Dismissing the application, the High Court upheld the CJM’s and Sessions Judge’s orders, reiterating that:
“Mere falsity in documents, without a demonstrated impact on judicial proceedings, does not justify perjury action.”
This ruling reaffirms the higher legal threshold for invoking Section 340 CrPC, ensuring that perjury laws are used only when false statements directly affect the justice system, rather than being weaponized for personal disputes.
