Perjury In Civil IP Disputes Requires Unimpeachable Evidence: Delhi High Court Rejects Philips' Plea For Perjury Action Against Ex-Employee In Software Piracy Case
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia, in a judgment dated 24 November 2025, declined to direct initiation of perjury proceedings against a former Philips employee, holding that Philips had not placed on record the clear, unimpeachable evidence necessary to justify criminal action. The decision arises from a copyright and trade secret dispute concerning alleged use of pirated and tampered copies of Philips’ “IntelliSpace Portal” (ISP) medical imaging software by a separate service entity. The Court found that statements made by the ex-employee in a February 2025 affidavit filed in response to court-ordered interrogatories did not amount to intentional falsehood, and that inconsistencies, disagreements or denials in civil proceedings, without proven deliberate falsity supported by unimpeachable evidence, are insufficient to warrant perjury proceedings.
The plaintiffs, engaged in developing and licensing medical imaging software including the “IntelliSpace Portal” (ISP), filed a civil suit seeking permanent injunction, damages and delivery up, alleging that the defendants were procuring, assembling and selling hardware loaded with pirated or tampered versions of ISP and misusing confidential information and trade secrets. An ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted in December 2023 restraining use or sale of ISP and related applications. The Court later allowed an application for discovery and interrogatories under Order XI CPC, directing the defendants to disclose details of alleged piracy, customers, revenues, technical circumvention methods, tools used and access to confidential information.
In February 2025, defendant no. 2, a former field service engineer of one plaintiff entity, filed an affidavit answering the interrogatories. The plaintiffs then moved the present application under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS, alleging offences under Sections 227, 229, 236, 237 and 246 BNS on the basis that the affidavit contained false denials and contradictions vis-à-vis the written statement, a local commissioner’s report and employment documentation, and relied on prior criminal proceedings under Sections 51, 63 and 64 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Defendant no. 2 opposed, disputing any admission of piracy or circumvention and contending that alleged inconsistencies must be tested at trial and are not supported by unimpeachable evidence.
The Court noted the legal threshold for initiating criminal proceedings for perjury under BNSS and BNS. It referred to the requirement that a denial does not by itself meet the threshold for perjury, observing that “a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold… particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement” and that inaccurate statements or mere suspicion do not attract the offence.
The Court recorded that contradictory versions alone are not enough, quoting that “the mere fact that a deponent has made contradictory statements at two different stages… is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution… it must be established that the deponent has intentionally given a false statement”.
It further noted that rival factual assertions do not automatically constitute falsity, observing in the quoted passage that “acceptance or rejection of evidence by itself is not a sufficient yardstick to dub the one rejected as false… falsity can be alleged when truth stands out glaringly”.
The Court stated that the LC report, when read as a whole, recorded that no infringing material was found at Defendant No. 2’s premises and that Defendant No. 2 disputed the statement attributed to him. It recorded: “the LC Report… does not reveal any undisputed acknowledgment… Defendant No.2 is clearly disputing the statement as recorded”.
Regarding the employment agreement, the Court observed that “the mere presence of the Employment Agreement cannot, by itself, render the denial… a ‘deliberate falsehood’” and that the affidavit stated only access to basic operational manuals. The Court further recorded that for perjury, “a statement must be demonstrably false when tested against unimpeachable evidence and made with intent to mislead the Court”, noting the absence of such evidence.
It stated that the affidavit reflected Defendant No. 2’s version of facts and that “a mere denial… without any unimpeachable evidence to the contrary or any indication of deliberate intent to mislead… cannot by itself attract the rigours of perjury”. The Court also stated that perjury jurisdiction must be exercised in exceptional circumstances and observed that “no such falsity has been demonstrated” with respect to the case laws cited by the plaintiffs.
Finally, it observed that before lodging a complaint, the Court must find that it is “expedient in the interests of justice” and that this requirement was not met.
The Court recorded that “before filing of the complaint under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS, the Court along with a clear and deliberate falsehood supported by unimpeachable evidence has to record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice.”
“The statements made by Defendant No. 2 in the Affidavit do not make it expedient in the interest of justice, nor constitute exceptional circumstances in which perjury jurisdiction may be invoked.”
“The requirements necessary to justify initiation of proceedings under Section 379 read with Section 215 of BNSS for offences under Sections 227, 229, 236, 237 and 246 of BNS are not fulfilled. The Application is, therefore, dismissed.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Mr. C.A. Brijesh and Ms. Simranjat Kaur, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Mr. Kunal Khanna, Mr. Madhav Anand, Mr. Krtin Bhasin, Mr. Yashveer Singh and Mr. Udit Sharma, Advocates for D2; Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Mr. Akshay Agarwal and Mr. Ranjeet Kumar Singh, Advocates for D3.
Case Title: Koninklijke Philips N.V. & Ors. v. Karma Mindtech & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:10345
Case Number: CS(COMM) 914/2023
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
