False Evidence Allegations: High Court Rules Out Perjury Prosecution Under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for Lack of Deliberate Intent - No Vindication for Private Grievances

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in its judgment dated 22 March 2024, held that prosecution for perjury under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) is not warranted unless there is a deliberate and conscious act of perjury affecting the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that Section 340 is not to be used for the vindication of private grievances but solely to uphold the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

The judgment arose from a petition challenging an order that directed further inquiry into allegations of perjury and false evidence by the petitioners in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondents. The petitioners were accused of deliberately implicating the respondents by furnishing false evidence.

Justice Kuldeep Tiwari meticulously analyzed the application of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The Court observed, "Prosecution for perjury should only be initiated where perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious, and where conviction is reasonably probable or likely." It was noted that mere inaccuracies in statements, which might be innocent or immaterial, should not attract prosecution under this section.

The Court further stated, "It is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made." However, upon examining the record, it found no deliberate perjury or intention to commit forgery by the petitioners. The inaccuracies did not demonstrate an attempt to mislead the court or affect the administration of justice.

The Court set aside the order for further inquiry under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C., finding it lacking in legality and failing to establish the expediency or necessity in the interest of justice. The Court directed to expedite the conclusion of the pending complaint, which had been ongoing for 12 years.

Date of Decision: 22 March 2024

United Bank of India and Anr. vs. State of Haryana and Ors.