Courts Will Not Have Time For Any Other Matter If They Proceed Against Every False Statement Made: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court recently held that before initiating prosecution for perjury, the court must be convinced that it is expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into the offence. A division bench comprising of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that : “in order to initiate prosecution for perjury, the Court must prima facie reach a conclusion that there...
The Kerala High Court recently held that before initiating prosecution for perjury, the court must be convinced that it is expedient in the interest of justice to enquire into the offence.
A division bench comprising of Justice Alexander Thomas and Justice C.S. Sudha observed that :
“in order to initiate prosecution for perjury, the Court must prima facie reach a conclusion that there has been a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the Court and interfere in the administration of justice. More so, it has to be seen whether such a prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice.”
The court remarked that multiple averments are made by parties in courts every single day and it would not be practical to proceed against every wrong statement made in court:
“If in all such cases, proceedings for perjury are to be filed, not only will that open up floodgates of litigation, but it would also be an abuse of the process of the Court and the courts will not have time for any other matter apart from considering such issues.”
In the matter at hand, in a proceeding for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C, an estranged husband had contended that the statement made by his wife under oath denying that she was employed and claiming that she had no means to maintain herself, amounted to giving false evidence and she ought to be punished under Section 193 of the IPC.
The husband had filed a complaint against his wife before the Magistrate invoking its powers under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for commission of the offence punishable under Section 193 IPC. The family court was of the prima facie view that there was sufficient material on record to show that the wife had given false evidence in court during cross examination. The wife had approached the High Court after the case was taken on file by the Magistrate on the basis of the complaint of the Family Court.
Adv. Benny Joseph appeared for the appellant/wife, Adv. Lowsy appeared for the first respondent/husband and Senior Public Prosecutor Saigi Jacob Palatty appeared for the state.
The court allowed the wife’s appeal and held that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. ought not to have been initiated:
“learned Family Court Judge has not arrived at a conclusion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the alleged offence as there had been a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the court or interfere in the administration of justice.”
Case Title: Rithu Maria Joy V Shejoy Varghese
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ker) 163