Citations about perjury, prosecution under CrPC 340, false allegations etc

A reader has compiled some citations related to prosecution for false allegations, perjury filed under CrPC 340 etc.

This article should also be referred to for the IPC sections which may be applicable for a case filed under CrPC 340.

———————————————————————
Citations below:

———————————————————————

        The  plaintiff  humbly requests the Hon’ble Court to consider the following  citations  where
         various honourable apex courts condemned the act of perjury and explained why it is so
         important to prosecute the wrong doers in so many words.

Hon‘ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh v. State of Punjab, (2000) 5SCC 668 noted
. “36. …… Perjury has also become a way of life in the law courts. A trial Judge knows that the witness
is telling a lie and is going back on his previous statement, yet he does not wish to punish him or even
file a complaint against him. He is required to sign the complaint himself which deters him from filing
the complaint….. that has made the situation reach such levels where pleadings contain false averments
and parties make false averments with impunity in the hope that in all probability the opposite party
will cough up something, and even if he does not, in the end he will have the last laugh, for a
prosecution of perjury, although consciously committed and persisted in, will have a probability of
punishment as good as nil. The gain far exceeds the risk.

In Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114, the Hon‘ble Supreme
Court noted:
”For many centuries, Indian society cherished two basic values of life I.e. ‗Satya‘ (truth) and ‗Ahimsa‘
(non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these
values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice-delivery system which was in
vogue in pre-Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective
of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system.
The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense
that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and
suppression of facts in the court proceedings. In the last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped
up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to
falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this
new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well
established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure
fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or
final.”

In the Supreme Court of India , in Civil Appeal Nos. 6342-6343 OF 2012
in case of V.Chandrasekaran&Anr. vs Administrative Officer &Ors. on
18 September, 2012
Para 34. He who seeks equity must do equity. The legal maxim “Jure Naturae
Aequum Est Neminem cum Alterius Detrimento Et Injuria Fieri Locupletiorem”,
means that it is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by causing loss or
injury to another (Vide: The Ramjas Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India &
                 .
Ors., AIR 1993 SC 852; Nooruddin v. (Dr.) K.L. Anand, (1995) 1 SCC 242; and
Ramniklal N. Bhutta&Anr. v. State of Maharashtra &Ors., AIR 1997 SC 1236).

In Civil Appeal No. 5239 of 2002 in the Honorable Supreme Court of
India dated 03.12.2009 passed by the Hon’ble Justice G.S. Singhvi and
Hon’ble Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly in Dalip Sing vs the State of U.P..
Para 1:
“In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time,
evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of
justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief,
interim or final.”

In Padmawati and Ors v. Harijan Sewak Sangh, 154 (2008) DLT 411, the
learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court (S.N. Dhingra, J.) noted as
under:
“ 6.  The case at hand shows that frivolous defences and frivolous litigation is a
calculated venture involving no risks situation. You have only to engage
professionals to prolong the litigation so as to deprive the rights of a person and
enjoy the fruits of illegalities. I consider that in such cases where Court finds that
using the Courts as a tool, a litigant has perpetuated illegalities or has
perpetuated an illegal possession, the Court must impose costs on such litigants
which should be equal to the benefits derived by the litigant and harm and
deprivation suffered by the rightful person so as to check the frivolous litigation and
prevent the people from reaping a rich harvest of illegal acts through the Courts.
One of the aim of every judicial system has to be to discourage unjust enrichment
using Courts as a tool. The costs imposed by the Courts must in all cases should be
the real costs equal to deprivation suffered by the rightful person.

9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the
reasons for over-flowing of court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by
the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible.
Even if these litigants ultimately loose the list, they become the real victors and have the last laugh.
This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts
must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person
deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can
only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting
for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after
20 or 30 years would make wrong doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years.
Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong doers are discouraged at every step and
even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer
the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong doers, use
one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always
loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be
redeemed by the Courts.
The Court imposed costs of `15.1 lakhs. Against this, Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
No 29197/2008 was preferred to the Supreme Court. On 19.03.2010, the Hon‘ble
Supreme Court passed the following order:
―We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We find no ground to
interfere with the well-considered judgment passed by the High Court. The Special
Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.”

A similar sentiment had been expressed by the Karnataka High Court in
A. Hiriyanna Gowda v. State of Karnataka, 1998 Cri.L.J. 4756:
1. The present application is filed under Section 340, Cr. P.C. and undoubtedly
involves a power that the Courts have been seldom exercising. It has unfortunately
become the order of the day, for false statements to be made in the course of
judicial proceedings even on oath and attempts made to substantiate these false
statements through affidavits or fabricated documents. It is very sad when this
happens because the real backbone of the working of the judicial system is based
on the element of trust and confidence and the purpose of obtaining a statement on
oath from the parties or written pleadings in order to arrive at a correct decision after evaluating the
respective positions. In all matters of fact therefore, it is not only a question of ethics, but an inflexible
requirement of law that every statement made must be true to the extent that it must be verified and
correct to the knowledge of the person making it. When a client instructs his learned Advocate to draft
the pleadings, the basic responsibility lies on the clients because the Advocate being an Officer of the
Court acts entirely on the instructions given to him, though the lawyer will not be immune from even a
prosecution. If the situation is uncertain it is for his client to inform his learned Advocate and
consequently if false statements are made in the pleadings the responsibility will devolve wholly and
completely on the party on whose behalf those statements are made.

2. It has unfortunately become common place for the pleadings to be taken very
lightly and for nothing but false and incorrect statements to be made in the course of judicial
proceedings, for fabricated documents to be produced and even in cases
where this comes to the light of the Court the party seems to get away because the
Courts do not take necessary counter-action. The disastrous result of such leniency
or indulgence is that it sends out wrong signals. It creates almost a license for
litigants and their lawyers to indulge in such serious malpractices because of the
confidence that no action will result. To my mind, therefore, the fact that the
petitioner has pressed in this application requires to be commended because it is a
matter of propriety and it is very necessary at least in a few glaring cases that an
example be made of persons who are indulging in such malpractices which
undermine the very administration of justice dispensation system and the working of the Courts. This
will at least have a deterrent effect on others.

5. It is true that the power that is now being exercised is seldom exercised, but I
am firmly of the view that in the interest of the purity of the working the Courts that it is absolutely
essential to take such corrective action whenever an instance
of the present type arises.

A Division Bench of Delhi High Court over two decades back in
RajendraJaina Towers (P) Ltd. v. Delhi Development Authority 33 (1987)
DLT 216 held as under:

27. All the statements in paragraph 11, to which I have referred, were material for
the purpose of taking a decision in the case. As I have tried to show, they were
deliberately made and carefully worded. Their object was to mislead and overreach
the court. The perjury was daring and atrocious. Probably, Mr. Rajender Jain thought
it was worth taking the risk because the courts are so reluctant to prosecute for
perjury. That is the general impression which has caused perjury to become so
rampant in our courts and resulted in vexatious litigation. It is clearly expedient in the interests of
justice, that Mr. Rajender Jain be prosecuted for the statements made in paragraph11 of the petition,
which he has incorporated by reference in his affidavit. The Court ordered the Registrar of this court to
make a complaint in writing against Mr. Rajender Jain, for having committed offences under Sections
191, 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code to the Magistrate having jurisdiction