Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.

in

BEFORE THE (Court name)

MISC. APPLICATION NO. of 20
IN
(Proceeding No. in which False Evidence / statement / declaration
was made)

Mr. AAA
Full Title …… Applicant
/ Original

Versus
Mr. ZZZ
Full
Title ….Respondents
/Original

PERJURY / MISC. APPLICATION U/S

340 R/W S.195 OF CRPC, 1973

THE APPLICANT MOST HUMBLY SUBMIT AS UNDER –

1. The nature of Misc. Application: The Applicant is taking out this

Perjury / Misc. Application u/s 340 r/w S.195 of CrPC, 1973, against
Respondent No.1. The Applicant submits that Respondent No.1, in
the aforesaid proceedings, has (select as may be applicable to the
facts of the case) (1) Has intentionally made false statement (orally or
in written) in evidence to prove the fact that , which is an
offence u/s 191 of IPC, 1860; and/or (2) Has fabricated / made a
document containing the false statement; or has made a false entry
in the (any book or record); or has created a fake /(non
existent) circumstances; and thereby has given in evidence the said
document containing the false statement / false entry / given in
evidence of fake/ nonexistent circumstances, to prove the fact that
, which is an offence u/s 192 of IPC, 1860; and/or (3)
Has knowingly used false evidence, as genuine evidence, which is an
offence u/s 196 of IPC, 1860. (It would include such cases where the
person although is not involved in fabricating false documents, yet
tender those false documents in evidence knowing well that the said
documents are false; and/or (4) Has knowingly issued or signed a
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

false certificate which were used in evidence, which is an offence u/s

197 of IPC, 1860; and/or (5) Has knowingly used a false certificate,
as true certificate in evidence, which is an offence u/s 198 of IPC,
1860; and/or (6) Has intentionally made a false statement in one’s
pleadings, as to the point which was very material to the facts of the
case / issues which were agitated before the Court, which is an
offence u/s 199 of IPC, 1860. [(2014) 9 SCC 230]. (7) Has knowingly
used pleadings containing the false statement, as true, which is an
offence u/s 200 of IPC, 1860. (It would include such cases where the
person although doesn’t himself make false pleadings, yet uses those
false pleadings knowing well that the said pleadings are false);
and/or (8) Has altered / tempered the documents which were there
in the custody of the Court, which is an offence u/ss 463, 471, 475,
476 r/w Section 195(b)(ii) of CrPC, 1973.

2. Very brief history of the Proceeding in which the false

evidence / statement / forgery has been committed: The
Applicant says that Applicant / Respondent had filed a
before this Hon’ble Court being No. .

3. The Order (operative part only) which was passed in the

aforesaid Proceeding: The Applicant submits that the Hon’ble Court
allowed / dismissed the aforesaid

4. The Applicant submits that the Applicant has in their possession

information / documents which overwhelmingly establish that
Respondent No.1 has knowingly used false evidence and documents
before the Hon’ble Court; and have misled the Hon’ble Court, and
have thus secured Orders from the Hon’ble Court on the basis of false
and fabricated evidence / statement / declaration; and on the same
premise of falsehood, the Appeal and revision also came to be in
Respondent No.1’s favour. The Applicant further submits that
although some of the documents relied upon in this Application were
before this Hon’ble Court at the time of passing of Order, the real
effect of all those documents could be appreciated in the presence of
all other documents which are relied upon herein. (Make changes as
applicable to the facts of the case)

5. The reason for initiating this Application: The Applicant

submits that, had the true state of affairs being known to the Hon’ble
Court, the Hon’ble Court must have granted reliefs to the Applicant
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

/ dismissed the case of the Respondents herein / the Hon’ble Court

in fact recorded the adverse findings as to evidence led / relied upon;
statements which were made relied upon; certificate issued / signed
/ relied upon. In this backdrop, the Applicant is filing this Misc.
Application, praying the Hon’ble Court to exercise their powers u/s
340 r/w S.195 of CrPC, 1973.

6. Exact particulars as to –
a) False statement (orally or in written) in evidence
b) Fabricated document containing the false statement;
c) False entry in the (any book or record);
d) Fake /(non existent) circumstances
e) Used false evidence, as genuine evidence
f) Issued or signed a false certificate
g) Used a false certificate, as true certificate
h) False statement in one’s pleadings
i) Used false statements in pleadings
j) Altered / tempered the documents which were there in the
custody of the Court

Like for example – The Applicant invites the attention of the Hon’ble
Court to the observations / findings of the Hon’ble Court Paras
of their Order dated ; or The Respondent No.1 has in
Para of the Affidavit /Evidence filed dated has stated that
; or Respondent No.1 relied upon the Evidence filed by
.

7. The Applicant spells out the ingredients of the offence of (1)

False statement (orally or in written) in evidence (S.191); (2)
Fabricated document containing the false statement (S.192); (3) False
entry in the (any book or record) (S.192); (4) Fake /(non
existent) circumstances (S.192); (5) Used false evidence, as genuine
evidence (S.196); (6) Issued or signed a false certificate (S.197); (7)
Used a false certificate, as true certificate (S.198); (8) False statement
in one’s pleadings (S.199); (9) Used false statements in pleadings
(S.200); (10) Altered / tempered the documents which were there in
the custody of the Court offence Sections 463, 471, 475, 476 of IPC,
1860, r/w Section 195(b)(ii) of CrPC, 1973. (as may be applicable to
the facts of the instant case) ; and further spells out that facts of the
present case, in the tabular form herein below, which will
demonstrate the commission of the offence by the Respondent.

Section 191. Giving false evidence

 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision

of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration
upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he
either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is
said to give false evidence.

Explanation 1- A statement is within the meaning of this section,

whether it is made verbally or otherwise.

Explanation 2- A false statement as to the belief of the person

attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be
guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which
he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which
he does not know.

Section 193. Punishment for false evidence: Whoever intentionally

gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates
false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial
proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine,

and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any

other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable
to fine.

Explanation 1- A trial before a Court-martial; 101 is a judicial

proceeding.

Explanation 2- An investigation directed by law preliminary to a

proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial
proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a
Court of Justice.

Sr. Ingredients of the offence / The facts of the

No. Facts to be Proved case
1 The Person accused was legally
bound by an oath, or The Person
accused was legally bound by an
express provision of law –

to state the truth; Or

The Person accused was legally

bound by law to make a
declaration upon a subject; and
2 The said Person had made false
statement on oath, or had made
false declaration; and
3 It must be shown (the conduct)
that the said Person was very
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

much aware that he was making

a false statement / declaration
under the law.

Section 192. Fabricating false evidence

Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry

in any book or record, or makes any document containing a false
statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false
statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a
proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an
arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false
statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in
such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain
an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of
such proceeding, is said "to fabricate false evidence".

Section 193. Punishment for false evidence: Whoever intentionally

gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates
false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial
proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine,

and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any

other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable
to fine.

Explanation 1- A trial before a Court-martial; 101 is a judicial

proceeding.

Explanation 2- An investigation directed by law preliminary to a

proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial
proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a
Court of Justice.

Sr. Ingredients of the offence / The facts of the

No. Facts to be Proved case
1 The Person accused had caused
a fake circumstance to have
existed;

or

The Person accused had made a

false entry in a book or record;

or
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

The Person accused had made a

document containing a false
statement; and
2 It must be shown (the conduct)
that the said Accused Person
had caused such circumstance,
or had made said false entry or
false statement with the purpose
that said circumstances, false
entry or false statement would
be relied as evidence in a judicial
proceeding, or would be relied in
a proceeding taken by law before
a public servant, or before an
arbitrator; and
3 It must be shown (the conduct)
that such circumstance, false
entry or false statement, so
appearing in evidence, may
cause any person, who in such
proceeding, is to form an opinion
upon the evidence, to entertain
an erroneous opinion touching
any point material to the result
of such proceeding.

Section 196. Using evidence known to be false:

Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine

evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall
be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false
evidence.

Sr. Ingredients of the offence / The facts of the

No. Facts to be Proved case
1 The Person accused had used or
had attempted to use, a piece of
evidence, oral or documentary;
and
2 The said Person was very well
aware that the piece of evidence
which he is using as evidence, is
false or is fabricated.

Section 197. Issuing or signing false certificate:

Whoever issues or signs any certificate required by law to be given or

signed, or relating to any fact of which such certificate is by law
admissible in evidence, knowing or believing that such certificate is
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as

if he gave false evidence.

Sr. Ingredients of the offence / The facts of the

No. Facts to be Proved case
1 The Person accused had issued
a certificate, which is required by
law to be given, or which is
relating to any fact of which such
certificate is by law admissible in
evidence;

Or

The Person accused had signed

a certificate which is required by
law to be signed or which is
relating to any fact of which such
certificate is by law admissible in
evidence; and
2 The said Person whilst issuing or
signing said certificate, was very
well aware that such certificate
was false in any material point.

Section 198. Using as true a certificate known to be false:

Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a

true certificate, knowing the same to be false in any material point,
shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

Sr. Ingredients of the offence / The facts of the

No. Facts to be Proved case
1 The Person accused had used or
had attempted to use, a
certificate as true certificate; and
2 The said Person was very well
aware that the said certificate is
false on a material point.

Section 199: False statement made in declaration which is by

law receivable as evidence:
Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which
declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other
person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any
fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows
or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any
point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used,
shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

Sr. Ingredients of the offence / The facts of the

No. Facts to be Proved case
1 The Person accused had made
false statement in his Pleadings;
and
2 The said false statement is
generally received as evidence in
the Court of law, or is received as
evidence before any Public
Servant or before any other
person; and
3 The said Court of law or Public
Servant or other Person, is
bound or is authorized to receive
said false statement as a piece of
evidence, to prove or disprove a
fact; and
4 It must be shown (the conduct)
that the accused Person was
very well aware that (a) he is
making a false statement in his
pleadings, or (b) the statement
which he is making is not true;
and
5 It must further be shown (the
conduct) that the false statement
which was made, had rational
nexus with the object of the
statement which was made by
the accused person,

or to say,

It must further be shown that

the false statement which was
made, was touching the main
object for which the said
statement was made by the
accused person.

Section 200: Using as true such declaration knowing it to be

false:

Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such

declaration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall
be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.

Explanation- A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the

ground of some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of
sections 199 to 200.
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

Sr. Ingredients of the offence / The facts of the

No. Facts to be Proved case
1 The Person accused had used or
had attempted to use, a
declaration containing a false
statement, as true declaration;
and
2 The said Person was very well
aware that the said declaration
is false on a material point.

8. The Applicant further submit as under –

(a) The scheme of justice is quest for truth: That the whole scheme
of Justice is a quest for truth; and therefore persons who are specially
equipped to alert the Courts about such facts which have direct
bearing on the issue before the Court, must be given the opportunity
to bring facts to the attention of the Courts. And the Applicant craves
leave to place on record the instructive observations of the Hon’ble
Apex Court in this respect.

Truth as guiding star in judicial process [(2012) 5 SCC 370]

Maria Margarida Sequeira Fernandes and Ors. Vs. Erasmo Jack
De Sequeira

Para 31: In this unfortunate litigation, the Court's serious endeavour

has to be to find out where in fact the truth lies. The truth should be
the guiding star in the entire judicial process.

Para 32: Truth alone has to be the foundation of justice. The entire
judicial system has been created only to discern and find out the real
truth. Judges at all levels have to seriously engage themselves in the
journey of discovering the truth. That is their mandate, obligation
and bounden duty.

Para 33: Justice system will acquire credibility only when people will
be convinced that justice is based on the foundation of the truth.

Para 34: In Mohanlal Shamji Soni V/s. Union of India 1991 Supp (1)
SCC 271, this Court observed that in such a situation a question that
arises for consideration is whether the presiding officer of a Court
should simply sit as a mere umpire at a contest between two parties
and declare at the end of the combat who has won and who has lost
or is there not any legal duty of his own, independent of the parties,
to take an active role in the proceedings in finding the truth and
administering justice? It is a well accepted and settled principle that
a Court must discharge its statutory functions- whether
discretionary or obligatory-according to law in dispensing justice
because it is the duty of a Court not only to do justice but also to
ensure that justice is being done.
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

Para 35: What people expect is that the Court should discharge its
obligation to find out where in fact the truth lies. Right from inception
of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication
and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying the
existence of the courts of justice.

Para 36: In Ritesh Tewari and Another V/s. State of U.P. and Others
(2010) 10 SCC 677 this Court reproduced often quoted quotation
which reads as under:
"Every trial is voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest"

Para 37: This Court observed that the power is to be exercised with
an object to subserve the cause of justice and public interest and for
getting the evidence in aid of a just decision and to uphold the truth.

Para 38: Lord Denning, in the case of Jones V/s. National Coal Board
[1957] 2 QB 55 has observed that:
"In the system of trial that we evolved in this country, the Judge sits
to hear and determine the issues raised by the parties, not to conduct
an investigation or examination on behalf of the society at large, as
happens, we believe, in some foreign countries."

Para 39: Certainly, the above, is not true of the Indian Judicial
system. A judge in the Indian System has to be regarded as failing to
exercise its jurisdiction and thereby discharging its judicial duty, if
in the guise of remaining neutral, he opts to remain passive to the
proceedings before him. He has to always keep in mind that "every
trial is a voyage of discovery in which truth is the quest". In order to
bring on record the relevant fact, he has to play an active role; no
doubt within the bounds of the statutorily defined procedural law.

Para 40: Lord Denning further observed in the said case of Jones
(supra) that "`It's all very well to paint justice blind, but she does
better without a bandage round her eyes. She should be blind indeed
to favour or prejudice, but clear to see which way lies the truth..."

Para 41: World over, modern procedural Codes are increasingly

relying on full disclosure by the parties. Managerial powers of the
Judge are being deployed to ensure that the scope of the factual
controversy is minimized.

Para 42: In civil cases, adherence to Section 30 CPC would also help
in ascertaining the truth. It seems that this provision which ought to
be frequently used is rarely pressed in service by our judicial officers
and judges. Section 30 CPC reads as under:-
30. Power to order discovery and the like. - Subject to such conditions
and limitations as may be prescribed, the Court may, at any time
either of its own motion or on the application of any party, -

(a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all

matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection,

production, impounding and return of documents or other material
objects producible as evidence;

(b) issue summons to persons whose attendance is required either to

give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as
aforesaid;

(c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit

Para 43: "Satyameva Jayate" (Literally: "Truth Stands Invincible") is

a mantra from the ancient scripture Mundaka Upanishad. Upon
independence of India, it was adopted as the national motto of India.
It is inscribed in Devanagari script at the base of the national
emblem. The meaning of full mantra is as follows:
"Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood. Through truth the divine path
is spread out by which the sages whose desires have been completely
fulfilled, reach where that supreme treasure of Truth resides."

Para 44: Malimath Committee on Judicial Reforms heavily relied on

the fact that in discovering truth, the judges of all Courts need to play
an active role. The Committee observed thus:

2.2.............In the adversarial system truth is supposed to emerge from

the respective versions of the facts presented by the prosecution and
the defence before a neutral judge. The judge acts like an umpire to
see whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt. The State discharges the obligation to protect life,
liberty and property of the citizens by taking suitable preventive and
punitive measures which also serve the object of preventing private
retribution so essential for maintenance of peace and law and order
in the society doubt and gives the benefit of doubt to the accused. It
is the parties that determine the scope of dispute and decide largely,
autonomously and in a selective manner on the evidence that they
decide to present to the court. The trial is oral, continuous and
confrontational. The parties use cross-examination of witnesses to
undermine the opposing case and to discover information the other
side has not brought out. The judge in his anxiety to maintain his
position of neutrality never takes any initiative to discover truth. He
does not correct the aberrations in the investigation or in the matter
of production of evidence before court "

2.15 "The Adversarial System lacks dynamism because it has no lofty

ideal to inspire. It has not been entrusted with a positive duty to
discover truth as in the Inquisitorial System. When the investigation
is perfunctory or ineffective, Judges seldom take any initiative to
remedy the situation. During the trial, the Judges do not bother if
relevant evidence is not produced and plays a passive role as he has
no duty to search for truth "

2.16.9. Truth being the cherished ideal and ethos of India, pursuit of
truth should be the guiding star of the Criminal Justice System. For
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

justice to be done truth must prevail. It is truth that must protect the
innocent and it is truth that must be the basis to punish the guilty.
Truth is the very soul of justice. Therefore truth should become the
ideal to inspire the courts to pursue. This can be achieved by
statutorily mandating the courts to become active seekers of truth. It
is of seminal importance to inject vitality into our system if we have
to regain the lost confidence of the people. Concern for and duty to
seek truth should not become the limited concern of the courts. It
should become the paramount duty of everyone to assist the court in
its quest for truth.

Para 45: In Chandra Shashi V/s. Anil Kumar Verma (1995) 1 SCC
421 to enable the Courts to ward off unjustified interference in their
working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, pre-
variation and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt
with, without which it would not be possible for any Court to
administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those
who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail.
People would have faith in Courts when they would find that truth
alone triumphs in Courts.

Para 46: Truth has been foundation of other judicial systems, such
as, the United States of America, the United Kingdom and other
countries.

Para 47: In James V/s. Giles et al. V/s. State of Maryland 386 U.S.
66, 87, S.Ct. 793), the US Supreme Court, in ruling on the conduct
of prosecution in suppressing evidence favourable to the defendants
and use of perjured testimony held that such rules existed for a
purpose as a necessary component of the search for truth and justice
that judges, like prosecutors must undertake. It further held that the
State's obligation under the Due Process Clause "is not to convict,
but to see that so far as possible, truth emerges."

Para 48: The obligation to pursue truth has been carried to extremes.
Thus, in United States V/s. J.Lee Havens 446 U.S. 620, 100
St.Ct.1912, it was held that the government may use illegally
obtained evidence to impeach a defendant's fraudulent statements
during cross-examination for the purpose of seeking justice, for the
purpose of "arriving at the truth, which is a fundamental goal of our
legal system".

Para 49: Justice Cardozo in his widely read and appreciated book
"The Nature of the Judicial Process" discusses the role of the judges.
The relevant part is reproduced as under:-
"There has been a certain lack of candour," "in much of the
discussion of the theme [of judges' humanity], or rather perhaps in
the refusal to discuss it, as if judges must lose respect and confidence
by the reminder that they are subject to human limitations." I do not
doubt the grandeur of conception which lifts them into the realm of
pure reason, above and beyond the sweep of perturbing and
deflecting forces. None the less, if there is anything of reality in my
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

analysis of the judicial process, they do not stand aloof on these chill
and distant heights; and we shall not help the cause of truth by
acting and speaking as if they do."

Para 50: Aharon Barak, President of Israeli Supreme Court from

1995 to 2006 takes the position that:
"For issues in which stability is actually more important than the
substance of the solution - and there are many such case - I will join
the majority, without restating my dissent each time. Only when my
dissenting opinion reflects an issue that is central for me - that goes
to the core of my role as a judge - will I not capitulate, and will I
continue to restate my dissenting opinion: "Truth or stability - truth
is preferable".

"On the contrary, public confidence means ruling according to the

law and according to the judge's conscience, whatever the attitude of
the public may be. Public confidence means giving expression to
history, not to hysteria. Public confidence is ensured by the
recognition that the judge is doing justice within the framework of
the law and its provisions. Judges must act - inside and outside the
court - in a manner that preserves public confidence in them. They
must understand that judging is not merely a job but a way of life. It
is a way of life that does not include the pursuit of material wealth or
publicity; it is a way of life based on spiritual wealth; it is a way of life
that includes an objective and impartial search for truth."

Para 51: In the administration of justice, judges and lawyers play

equal roles. Like judges, lawyers also must ensure that truth
triumphs in the administration of justice.

Para 52: Truth is the foundation of justice. It must be the endeavour

of all the judicial officers and judges to ascertain truth in every matter
and no stone should be left unturned in achieving this object. Courts
must give greater emphasis on the veracity of pleadings and
documents in order to ascertain the truth.

False / Misleading / suppression of facts / pleadings before the

Court

In the case of Dhananjay Sharma v State of Haryana & Ors.,

(1995) 3 SCC 757, the Supreme Court has held, inter alia, as- The
filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law
exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course
of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted
nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct
on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as
witnesses.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rita Markandey v Surjit

Singh Arora, (1996) 6 SCC 14, inter alia, observed as, Filing of false
affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such
conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the
judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is
put at stake.

In the case of Murray & Co. vs Ashok Kr. Newatia & Anr, AIR
2000 SC 833, 10, the Apex Court observed to say that the right to
inflict punishment for contempt of Court in terms of the Act of 1971
on to the Law Courts has been for the purposes of ensuring the rule
of law and orderly administration of justice. This is a special
Jurisdiction conferred on to the law courts to punish an offender for
his contemptuous conduct or obstruction to majesty of law. Litigant
public ought to be extremely careful and cautious in the matter of
making statements before Courts of Law.

In the case of Afzal v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp (2) SCC

388 wherein this Court observed to say that it cannot be lightly
brushed aside and the tendency to file false affidavits or fabricated
documents or forgery of the document and placing them as part of
the record of the Court are matters of grave and serious concern.

In the case of Bineet Kumar Singh AIR 2001 SC 2018, the Apex Court
observed to say that a false or misleading or a wrong statement
deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain
a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interefere with
the due course of judicial proceedings.

In the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan Versus State Of Madhya

Pradesh AIR 2011 SC 1989, the Apex Court observed:

140 Whenever the Court comes to the conclusion that the process of
the Court is being abused, the Court would be justified in refusing to
proceed further with the matter. This rule has been evolved out of
need of the Courts to deter a litigant from abusing the process of the
Court by deceiving it. However, the concealed fact must be material
one in the sense that had it not been suppressed, it would have an
effect on the merit of the case/order. The legal maxim "Juri Ex Injuria
Non Oritur" means that a right cannot arise out of wrong doing, and
it becomes applicable in a case like this. (Vide: The Ramjas
Foundation &Ors. V/s. Union of India &Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852;
Noorduddin V/s. Dr. K.L. Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242; Ramniklal N.
Bhutta&Anr. V/s. State of Maharashtra &Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1236;
Sabia Khan &Ors. V/s. State of U.P. &Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 271; S.J.S.
Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. V/s. State of Bihar &Ors., (2004) 7 SCC
166; and Union of India &Ors. V/s. ShantiranjanSarkar, (2009) 3
SCC 90).

141 It is a settled proposition of law that a false statement made in

the Court or in the pleadings, intentionally to mislead the Court and
obtain a favourable order, amounts to criminal contempt, as it tends
to impede the administration of justice. It adversely affects the
interest of the public in the administration of justice. Every party is
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

under a legal obligation to make truthful statements before the

Court, for the reason that causing an obstruction in the due course
of justice "undermines and obstructs the very flow of the unsoiled
stream of justice, which has to be kept clear and pure, and no one
can be permitted to take liberties with it by soiling its purity". (Vide:
Naraindas V/s. Government of Madhya Pradesh &Ors., AIR 1974 SC
1252; The Advocate General, State of Bihar V/s. M/s. Madhya
Pradesh Khair Industries &Anr., AIR 1980 SC 946; and Afzal&Anr.
V/s. State of Haryana &Ors., (1996) 7 SCC 397).

142 In K.D. Sharma V/s. Steel Authority of India Limited &Ors.,

(2008) 12 SCC 481, this Court held that:
"Prerogative writs......... are issued for doing substantial justice. It is,
therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the
writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts
before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and
seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant
and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court,
his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering
the merits of the claim." (Emphasis added)

143 While deciding the said case this Court relied upon the leading
case of R. V/s. General Commissioners for the purposes of the
Income Tax Act for the District of Kensington, (1917) 1KB 486,
wherein it had been observed as under:
"...when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex
parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the
material facts--it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if
he can help it--the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows
nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly
the facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation
is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated
to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the
faith of the imperfect statement.......If the applicant makes a false
statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the
court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone The
rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by
deceiving it." (Emphasis supplied)

144 In such a case the person who suppresses the material facts
from the court is guilty of SuppressioVeri and SuggestioFalsi i.e.
suppression or failure to disclose what a party is bound to disclose,
which may amount to fraud.

In the case of Bineet Kumar Singh Versus Government Of

Maharashtra AIR 2001 SC 2018, the Apex Court observed to say
that, Para 6: The law of Contempt of Court is essentially meant for
keeping the administration of justice pure and undefiled. It is difficult
to rigidly define contempt. While on the one hand, the dignity of the
Court has to be maintained at all costs, it must also be borne in mind
that the contempt jurisdiction is of a special nature and should be
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

sparingly used. The Supreme Court is the highest Court of records

and it is charged with the duties and responsibilities of protecting the
dignity of the Court. To discharge its obligation as the custodian of
the administration of justice in the country and as the highest Court
imbued with supervisory and appellate jurisdiction over all the lower
Courts and Tribunals, it is inherently deemed to have been entrusted
with the power to see the stream of justice in the country remains
pure, that its course is not hindered or obstructed in any manner,
that justice is delivered without fear or favour. To discharge this
obligation, the Supreme Court has to take cognizance of the deviation
from the path of justice. The sole object of the Court wielding its
power to punish for contempt is always for the course of
administration of justice. Nothing is more incumbent upon the
Courts of justice, than to preserve their proceedings from being
misrepresented, nor is there anything more pernicious when the
order of the Court is forged and produced to gain undue advantage.
Criminal contempt has been defined in Section 2(c) to mean
interference with the administration of justice in any manner. A false
or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by
a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would
undoubtedly tantamount to interfere with the due course of judicial
proceedings. When a person is found to have utilised an order of a
Court which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on
persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the
fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold
him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she
himself or herself is the author of fabrication.

In the case of Chandra Shashi Versus Anil Kumar Verma 1995 (1)
SCC 421, the Apex Court observed:
Para 1: The stream of administration of justice has to remain
unpolluted so that purity of court's atmosphere may give vitality to
all the organs of the State. Polluters of judicial firmament are,
therefore, required to be well taken care of to maintain the sublimity
of court's environment; so also to enable it to administer justice fairly
and to the satisfaction of all concerned.

2 Anyone who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial

proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same
interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are
required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the
wrong done, but also to deter others from indulging in similar acts
which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of
justice.

3 These prefatory remarks well project the importance of the point

under consideration in this suo motu contempt action taken against
respondent Anil Kumar for his having filed a fabricated document to
oppose the prayer of his wife seeking transfer of a matrimonial
proceeding from Delhi to Unnao.
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

In the case of Advocate General For The State Of Bihar Versus

Madhya Pradesh Khair Industries, AIR 1980 SC 946, the Apex
Court observed:
Para 8 In Halsbury's Laws of England, (4th Edn., Vol. 9, paragraph
38), there is a brief discussion of when abuse of the process of the
Court may be a punishable contempt. It is said :

"38. Abuse of process in general. The Court has power to punish as

contempt any misuse of the court's process. Thus the forging or
altering of court documents and other deceits of like kind are
punishable as serious contempt's. Similarly, deceiving the court or
the court's officers by deliberately suppressing a fact, or giving false
facts, may be a punishable contempt.

D S Poonia versus Yumnam Dimbajit Singh AIR 2003 SC

1855: The facts and circumstances showed that wrong statements
made by both respondents with anxiety to defend themselves.

[AIR 2003 SC 3039] The essence of the offence of the crime is not
how false statements may injure this or that party to litigation but
how they may deceive and mislead the Courts and thus produce
mischievous consequences to the administration of Civil and
Criminal justice.

9. Inquiry into the offence: The Applicant submits that all

submissions made herein are supported by documentary evidence;
and makes out a prima facie case, for the purpose of inquiry into an
offence alleged of; and it is expedient in the interests of justice that
an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence.

10. Limitation: The Applicant states that offences committed u/ss 191
to 200 are deemed as giving of false evidence, which is set out in
section 193 of IPC, 1860, and whereas the punishment for giving
false evidence may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine, the law of limitation does not apply; and therefore the present
Application is not time barred.

11. Jurisdiction of the Hon’ble Court: The Applicant submits that

since false evidence / statements / pleadings / etc. were made in
proceedings before this Hon’ble Court / and in view of bar contained
u/s 195 of CrPC, 1973, this Court alone has the jurisdiction to
entertain the present Application and pass appropriate Orders in this
behalf.
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

12. The approach of the Hon’ble Court in dealing with Perjury

Applications as laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court: The Applicant
in their limited understanding, sets out, ordinarily the approach of
the Hon’ble Court in dealing with perjury Applications.
(a) There are two pre conditions for initiating proceedings under
Section 340 CrPC - (i) materials produced before the court must make
out a prima facie case, for the purpose of inquiry into an offence
alleged of; and (ii) it is expedient in the interests of justice that an
inquiry should be made into the alleged offence; that is to say, the
court must prima facie satisfy itself on two aspects (a) the proposed
accused has intentionally / knowingly made false statement / led
false evidence; (b) and the nature of false statement / evidence, etc.
was material to the issue which is to be decided by the Court. [AIR
2016 SC 5384]

(b) In these Applications, the Court is not obliged to hear proposed

Accused, that is to say, there is no obligation upon Court to afford
opportunity of hearing to the party against whom the said
proceedings are intended to be initiated. [AIR 2002 SC 236].

(c) The crux of the mandate of section 340 is formation of an opinion

by the court that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into an offence which appears to have been
committed. In order to form such opinion the court is empowered to
hold a preliminary inquiry. However, It is not peremptory that such
preliminary inquiry should be held in every case, and even without
such preliminary inquiry the court can form such an opinion when it
appears to the court that an offence has been committed in relation
to a proceeding in that court.
(d) It is important to note that even when the court forms such an
opinion it is not mandatory that the court should make a complaint.
This sub-section has conferred a power on the court to do so. It does
not mean that the court should, as a matter of course, make a
complaint. But once the court decides to do so, then the court should
make a finding to the effect that on the fact situation it is expedient
in the interest of justice that the offence should further be probed
into. [2016 CrLJ 1090 SC]

13. Reliefs Prayed: The Applicant therefore most humbly prays –

a) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to initiate Inquiry into the allegations
made against Respondent No.1 herein;
 Men Ki Baat – www.menkibaat.in

b) The Hon’ble Court in due exercise of powers contained in Section

340 r/w 195 of CrPC, 1973, be caused to make a complaint in
writing; and caused to send it to a Magistrate of the first class having
jurisdiction, against the Respondent No.1 herein;

c) In the alternative of Clause (b) above, the Hon’ble Court may

pleased to make Reference before the Hon’ble High Court to
initiate Contempt proceedings against the Respondent No.1 herein.
d) Any other and such further relief as the circumstances deem fit
and proper be granted.

Applicant

VERIFICATION

I, the Applicant do hereby solemnly verify that the

contents of my above Application are true and correct to my
knowledge, no part of it is false and nothing material has been
concealed therein.
(Solemnly affirmed at )
This day of 20

Applicant