Trial Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Act On Alleged False Affidavits Filed Before Supreme Court: J&K&L High Court

Justice Sanjay Dhar emphasised that the statutory scheme under criminal procedure law leaves no scope for collateral or indirect initiation of perjury proceedings by courts before which the alleged false statement was never made.

“if any false affidavit has been filed by the respondent in relation to proceedings before the Supreme Court, it is only that Court which can, after holding a preliminary inquiry in terms of Section 476 of the J&K Cr.P.C., which is in pari-materia with Section 340 of the Cr. P.C., frame an opinion as to whether an offence of perjury has been committed by the respondent”, the court said.

The ruling came in a petition filed by M/s Ace Enterprises challenging an order of the Judge Small Causes, Srinagar, which had declined to initiate proceedings against an arbitrator for offences under Sections 192 and 193 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), relating to fabrication of false evidence and perjury.

Background:

The controversy had its genesis in a civil suit filed in 2006 by M/s Ace Enterprises seeking declaration and injunction against the Union of India and others. During the pendency of the suit, an application under Section 8 of the J&K Arbitration Act was filed, leading to the appointment of the respondent as arbitrator. Arbitration proceedings were subsequently stayed by the trial court, and though the arbitrator adjourned the proceedings sine die, the stay order was later recalled, triggering allegations of contempt.

The contempt proceedings ultimately travelled to the High Court and thereafter to the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition. While disposing of the SLP in 2018, the Supreme Court issued directions regarding the treatment of the contempt application and permitted the parties to raise their respective contentions before the trial court.

It was thereafter that the petitioner approached the trial court seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against the arbitrator, alleging that false statements had been made on oath in a rejoinder affidavit filed before the Supreme Court.

Appearing in person, the petitioner contended that the respondent arbitrator had made false assertions before the Supreme Court with the intent to mislead the Court and pollute the administration of justice. It was argued that the arbitrator, being impleaded as a party before the Supreme Court, could not deny filing a rejoinder affidavit, and such conduct squarely attracted offences under Sections 192 and 193 RPC.

Opposing the petition, Senior Advocate Mr. D.C. Raina, assisted by Mr. B.A. Dar, Advocate, appearing for the respondent arbitrator, submitted that the very foundation of the petitioner's case was misconceived. It was contended that the alleged false affidavit was not sworn by the respondent at all, and in any event, the trial court had no jurisdiction to initiate perjury proceedings for statements allegedly made before the Supreme Court.

Court's Observations and Analysis:

After hearing the parties and examining the record, the High Court undertook a detailed analysis of the statutory framework governing perjury. The Court noted that offences under Section 193 RPC are expressly covered by the bar contained in Section 195 of the J&K Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that cognizance can be taken only on a complaint in writing by the court before which the offence is alleged to have been committed, or by a court to which it is subordinate.

Justice Dhar underscored that Section 476 of the J&K Cr.P.C. (pari materia with Section 340 Cr.P.C.) requires the concerned court to first conduct a preliminary inquiry and record a finding that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute for perjury.

In a significant observation, the Court held,

“If any false affidavit has been filed by the respondent in relation to proceedings before the Supreme Court, it is only that Court which can, after holding a preliminary inquiry… frame an opinion as to whether an offence of perjury has been committed.”

The Court made it clear that jurisdiction to initiate perjury proceedings is inseparably linked to the forum before which the alleged false statement is made, and cannot be assumed by another court, howsoever closely connected the proceedings may be.

Addressing the petitioner's reliance on the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in its order dated 07.02.2018, the High Court clarified that such liberty to raise “other contentions” before the trial court could not be stretched to include initiation of perjury proceedings relating to affidavits allegedly filed before the Supreme Court. The Court observed that the Supreme Court's order nowhere contemplated or authorised such a course.

Even on facts, the High Court found the petitioner's case to be devoid of substance. A careful perusal of the rejoinder affidavit placed on record revealed that it had been sworn and signed by a Law Officer of Indian Oil Corporation and not by the respondent arbitrator.

The Court observed in clear terms,

“The rejoinder affidavit has not been signed by the respondent who was an Arbitrator and not a contesting party either before the trial court or before the Supreme Court.”

It was further noted that, even according to the petitioner's own case, no false pleading or affidavit had been filed by the respondent before the trial court. In such circumstances, initiation of perjury proceedings against the respondent was wholly unsustainable.

Holding that the trial court had correctly appreciated both the law and the facts, the High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the challenge.

Case Title: M/S Ace Enterprises Vs Shri Jagdeep Rana

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment