The Allahabad High Court held in Mahesh Tiwari vs State of UP that deliberately making false averments in a verified plaint or affidavit constitutes giving false evidence, which justifies criminal proceedings for perjury and cannot be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.
Origin of the Perjury Dispute
The proceedings in Application U/S 482 No. 12840 of 2016 arose from a challenge to an order passed in Complaint Case No. 743 of 2014, titled Vijay Kumar vs Mahesh Tiwari, pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Anwla, in Bareilly district. The complainant initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant alleging commission of offences under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalizes the intentional giving or fabricating of false evidence in judicial proceedings.
The controversy stemmed from earlier civil litigation between the parties involving property claims. In the civil plaint and supporting verified affidavits filed before the civil court, the applicant had made specific factual assertions regarding ownership, possession, and previous legal transactions. The complainant demonstrated that these sworn averments were demonstrably false and made intentionally to deceive the civil court and obtain unlawful interim orders. After examining the complaint and preliminary evidence, the learned Magistrate summoned the applicant under Section 193 IPC.
Pleadings and Affidavits as Evidence Under the Penal Code
Before the High Court, the applicant argued that averments made in a civil plaint or written statement do not constitute substantive evidence under the Indian Evidence Act until the declarant enters the witness box for cross-examination. It was contended that a false statement in a pleading cannot attract the offence of perjury under Section 193 IPC and that initiating criminal proceedings for statements in a civil suit was an abuse of the court process.
The Allahabad High Court rejected this contention, explaining the statutory relationship between Section 191 and Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 191 defines giving false evidence as making a statement that the maker knows or believes to be false, when legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth. The court observed that:
- Order VI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure mandates that every pleading must be verified on oath by the party or someone acquainted with the facts.
- A verification attached to a plaint or written statement is a solemn declaration under law that the contents are true to the personal knowledge or belief of the declarant.
- When a litigant intentionally makes a false declaration in a verified pleading to deceive the court, the act directly satisfies the definition of filing false affidavit in pleadings.
- Such conduct constitutes perjury under Section 193 IPC and cannot be shielded behind the technical argument that formal evidence had not yet commenced in the civil trial.
- The presence of intentional falsehood in sworn declarations corrupts the administration of justice and cannot be treated as ordinary procedural non-compliance.
The Threshold for Quashing Under Section 482 CrPC
The High Court carefully evaluated its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The bench reiterated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, observing that inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings must be exercised sparingly and in the rarest of rare cases.
In the judgment of Mahesh Tiwari vs State of UP, the court affirmed that when a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood is disclosed on the face of the complaint and verified documents, the High Court cannot usurp the role of the trial court to assess contested questions of fact. The question of whether the false statement was made knowingly or under a bona fide mistake is a matter of trial that cannot be decided in a summary Section 482 petition. Consequently, the prayer for Section 482 CrPC quashing of perjury complaint was refused.
Preserving the Sanctity of Judicial Proceedings
The High Court stressed that truth is the foundation of the justice delivery system. The court noted with concern the growing tendency among litigants to treat court pleadings and affidavits casually, making reckless assertions to secure ex-parte injunctions or delay proceedings. The bench observed that judicial tolerance toward false affidavits corrodes public confidence in courts and pollutes the stream of justice.
The court laid down essential considerations for evaluating perjury complaints in civil litigation:
- Every verification in a court proceeding carries solemn legal liability under the Indian Penal Code.
- Litigants who attempt to obtain judicial relief through deceitful assertions commit a fraud upon the court.
- Courts must not hesitate to initiate or allow prosecution under Section 193 IPC when prima facie evidence of deliberate fabrication exists.
- The defence of lack of mens rea must be established during trial and cannot be adjudicated at the threshold under Section 482.
Drafting Lessons for Affidavits and Verification Clauses
The ruling highlights the critical responsibility resting upon legal practitioners while drafting and verifying pleadings. Advocates must ensure that clients understand the binding legal nature of verification clauses and that only true facts within their knowledge or belief are placed on sworn record.
Advocates researching criminal quashing jurisprudence regularly examine procedural thresholds under Section 482 CrPC to evaluate the maintainability of threshold challenges. Furthermore, reviewing standards of verification in judicial proceedings assists counsel in maintaining impeccable drafting ethics and protecting clients from inadvertent perjury liability.
The Allahabad High Court's decision in Mahesh Tiwari vs State of UP stands as a potent warning that false averments in court pleadings will not be tolerated and that deliberate deception under oath will attract criminal prosecution under the penal law.