Perjury Proceedings Cannot Be Initiated By Trial Court For Alleged False Affidavit Filed Before Supreme Court: J&K And Ladakh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar dismissed a petition challenging a trial court’s refusal to initiate perjury proceedings against an arbitrator. The petitioner alleged that a false affidavit was filed before the Supreme Court. The Court said perjury action can be initiated only by the court before which the alleged false statement is made; accordingly, where the statement is in Supreme Court proceedings, the Supreme Court alone has jurisdiction and no subordinate court can assume it. Justice Dhar said the statutory scheme allows no collateral or indirect initiation by a court where no such statement was made. The Court also found the rejoinder was signed by a law officer, not the arbitrator.
The petition was filed by a private entity challenging an order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Srinagar, which had rejected its application seeking initiation of criminal proceedings for alleged perjury against an arbitrator. The petitioner alleged that the arbitrator had committed offences punishable under Sections 192 and 193 of the Ranbir Penal Code by making false statements on oath in proceedings before the Supreme Court.
The dispute arose from a civil suit seeking declaration and injunction, in which an arbitration clause was invoked and the respondent was appointed as arbitrator. During the pendency of the proceedings, arbitration was stayed by the trial court. Subsequent orders passed by the arbitrator led to contempt proceedings, which were dismissed by the trial court. The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, which was disposed of with specific directions concerning contempt proceedings under the civil procedure framework.
Following the disposal of the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the petitioner approached the trial court seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against the arbitrator, contending that a false rejoinder affidavit had been filed before the Supreme Court. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that no case was made out. This order was challenged before the High Court.
The High Court examined the statutory framework governing prosecution for offences relating to perjury and fabrication of evidence. It observed that “Section 195 of the J&K Cr. P. C provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable, inter-alia, under Section 193 of RPC when such offence is alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in any court except on the complaint in writing of that court.”
Referring to the procedure prescribed under Section 476 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court recorded that “before making a complaint in respect of offences mentioned in section 195 Cr.P.C, the concerned court has to make a preliminary inquiry and record a finding that an offence… appears to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in that court.” It noted that only thereafter could a complaint be made before the competent Magistrate.
Addressing the petitioner’s allegations, the Court stated that “if any false affidavit has been filed by the respondent in relation to proceedings before the Supreme Court, it is only that Court which can, after holding a preliminary inquiry… frame an opinion as to whether an offence of perjury has been committed.”
The Court further recorded that “before the said court, even as per the case of the petitioner, the respondent has not filed any false pleading.” It rejected the contention that liberty granted by the Supreme Court extended to initiation of perjury proceedings, observing that “it nowhere provides that the petitioner has been given liberty to raise even the issue with regard to initiation of proceedings for perjury, in respect of the proceedings that have been conducted before the Supreme Court.”
On facts, the Court noted that “a bare perusal of the rejoinder affidavit would reveal that the same has been signed by Ms. Sonia Sanjwani, Law Officer of Indian Oil Corporation.” It further observed that “the rejoinder affidavit has not been signed by the respondent who was an Arbitrator and not a contesting party either before the trial court or before the Supreme Court.”
The High Court recorded that “the learned trial court has rightly declined to initiate proceedings on the basis of the application of the petitioner against the respondent. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed accordingly.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Petitioner in person
For the Respondent: Mr. D. C. Raina, Senior Advocate, with Mr. B. A. Dar, Advocate
Case Title: M/s Ace Enterprises v. Shri Jagdeep Rana
Case Number: CM(M) No. 86/2023
Bench: Justice Sanjay Dhar
