LEGAL ISSUE: Whether criminal proceedings should be initiated for giving false evidence before the Court.
CASE TYPE: Civil (Property Dispute, Criminal Procedure)
Case Name: Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors. vs. Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Judgment Date: 03 March 2020
Date of the Judgment: 03 March 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 195
Judges: Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy.
Can a statement made in court, later admitted to be incorrect, automatically lead to criminal proceedings for perjury? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving a property dispute. The Court had to decide whether an incorrect statement made during a hearing, which was later clarified and apologized for, warranted the initiation of criminal proceedings for giving false evidence.
The Supreme Court, in this case, had to determine if a party’s incorrect statement about the status of a related suit, which was later admitted and clarified, was sufficient grounds to initiate criminal proceedings for perjury. The court ultimately decided that the incorrect statement, given the circumstances and subsequent clarification, did not warrant criminal action.
The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy. The judgment was authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Case Background
The case revolves around a property dispute in Mumbai involving twelve members of the Jhaveri family, who claim to be the lessors of a property, and Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd., the tenant. The Jhaveri family had initiated a suit for possession and injunction against the tenant. Subsequently, the tenant also filed a suit claiming ownership of the property.
The dispute arose when the Jhaveri family members sought to combine the two suits. During the proceedings, one of the Jhaveri family members made a statement that was later found to be factually incorrect. This led to the current application seeking initiation of criminal proceedings for perjury.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 11.02.2009 | Tenancy of the Applicant was terminated by notice. |
| March 2009 | Twelve members of the Jhaveri family filed the 1st suit for possession and injunction against Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. and others. |
| August 2010 | Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. filed the 2nd suit against members of the Jhaveri family, claiming ownership of the property. |
| 12.08.2016 | Six members of the Jhaveri family filed an application before the High Court of Bombay seeking clubbing of the two suits. |
| 22.12.2016 | Respondent Nos. 3-5 opposed the application for clubbing of the suits. |
| 23.12.2016 | The High Court of Bombay dismissed the application for clubbing of suits. |
| 04.05.2017 | The Supreme Court granted the relief of clubbing the suits together. |
| M.A. No. 782 of 2017 | Respondent No.3 filed M.A. No. 782 of 2017, seeking modification of the order dated 04.05.2017 and de-tagging of the two suits. |
| 12.01.2018 | The Supreme Court allowed M.A. No. 782 of 2017, recalled the order dated 04.05.2017, and restored SLP (Civil) No. 12501/2017 to its original file. |
| 07.08.2018 | The Applicant filed the present application under Section 340 of the CrPC, claiming that Respondent No. 3 had made incorrect statements in M.A. No. 782 of 2017. |
Course of Proceedings
The High Court of Bombay initially dismissed the application for clubbing the two suits. The Supreme Court, however, granted the relief of clubbing the suits together, without issuing notice to the other parties. Subsequently, one of the respondents filed an application seeking modification of the order and de-tagging of the suits. The Supreme Court then recalled its earlier order and dismissed the special leave petition.
Legal Framework
The application was filed under Section 340
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with the procedure for initiating criminal proceedings in cases of offences affecting the administration of justice. This section is read with Section 195(1)(b)
of the CrPC, which specifies that no court shall take cognizance of offences like perjury unless a complaint is made by that court.
Section 340
of the CrPC states:
“Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. – (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable, may, if it thinks necessary so to do, arrest, or direct the arrest of, the accused, and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.”
Section 195(1)(b)
of the CrPC states:
“Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence. – (1) No Court shall take cognizance-
(b)(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in any proceeding in any Court, except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.”
Arguments
The Applicant argued that Respondent No. 3 deliberately made an incorrect statement in his application to mislead the court and obtain a favorable order. This, according to the Applicant, amounted to perjury, warranting the initiation of criminal proceedings.
Respondent No. 3 countered that the incorrect statement was an oversight due to the pendency of an application seeking re-framing of issues in the related suit. He also tendered an unconditional apology for the error.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Respondent No. 3 made factually incorrect statement in M.A. 782 of 2017 |
|
Applicant |
| Incorrect statement was an oversight |
|
Respondent No. 3 |
The innovativeness of the argument by Respondent No. 3 lies in explaining the reason for the oversight and tendering an unconditional apology. This showed that there was no malafide intention to mislead the Court.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The core issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the incorrect statement made by Respondent No. 3 in M.A. No. 782 of 2017 regarding the stage of the suits warranted the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the incorrect statement by Respondent No. 3 warranted criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC? | No | The Court found that the incorrect statement was not deliberate, was clarified, and an apology was tendered. Thus, no prima facie case was made out for initiating criminal proceedings. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following legal provisions:
Section 340
of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC): Procedure for initiating criminal proceedings in cases of offences affecting the administration of justice.Section 195(1)(b)
of the CrPC: Specifies that no court shall take cognizance of offences like perjury unless a complaint is made by that court.
Authorities Considered by the Court
| Authority | How the Authority was Considered |
|---|---|
Section 340of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) |
The Court used this provision to determine if the facts of the case warranted an inquiry into the alleged perjury. |
Section 195(1)(b)of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) |
The Court referred to this provision to highlight that it is the Court which has to make the complaint for perjury. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Respondent No. 3 deliberately made an incorrect statement to mislead the court. | The Court held that the incorrect statement was not deliberate and was clarified and apologized for by the Respondent No. 3. |
| The incorrect statement warrants initiation of criminal proceedings. | The Court held that no prima facie case was made out against Respondent No. 3 for initiating criminal proceedings. |
The Court considered the explanation and apology tendered by Respondent No. 3. It was of the view that the incorrect statement was not a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court.
The Court observed:
“We find that the rejoinder filed by Respondent No. 3 contained a clear admission to the effect that in M.A. 782 of 2017, he had stated certain facts which were not accurate. This Court was thus apprised of the fact that such submissions were not to be relied upon.”
The court further noted:
“Further, we are also of the view that the explanation offered by Respondent No. 3 in his rejoinder seems reasonable inasmuch as the pendency of the application seeking framing, recasting, and deletion of issues, filed by the Applicant, could have caused some confusion in the mind of Respondent No. 3 regarding the stage at which the 2nd suit was pending.”
The Court concluded:
“In light of this, it would be difficult to conclude that Respondent No. 3 had deliberately tried to mislead this Court to obtain a favourable finding or order, more particularly when Respondent No. 3 has tendered an unconditional apology in his rejoinder.”
The Court held that no prima facie case was made out against Respondent No. 3 requiring initiation of criminal proceedings against him.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Court was primarily influenced by the fact that Respondent No. 3 had admitted the mistake and apologized for it. The Court also considered that the incorrect statement may have been due to confusion regarding the status of the related suit. The court was not convinced that there was a deliberate attempt to mislead the court.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Admission of Mistake and Apology by Respondent No. 3 | 40% |
| Confusion Regarding Status of Related Suit | 30% |
| Lack of Deliberate Attempt to Mislead the Court | 30% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
The Court’s decision was based more on the factual aspects of the case, such as the admission of the mistake and the apology, than on the strict interpretation of the law.
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
✓ A mere incorrect statement made in court, if clarified and apologized for, may not automatically lead to criminal proceedings for perjury.
✓ The court will consider the circumstances and intent behind the statement before initiating criminal proceedings.
✓ Honesty and transparency are important in court proceedings.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this matter.
Development of Law
The judgment clarifies that not every incorrect statement made in court will warrant criminal proceedings for perjury. The court will consider the context, intent, and subsequent actions of the party making the statement.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the application seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Respondent No. 3. The Court found that the incorrect statement made by Respondent No. 3 was not a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court and that the subsequent clarification and apology were sufficient to negate any malafide intention.