Kerala Court Directs Criminal Action Against Film Producer Shamnas For Making False Affidavit In His Complaint Against Actor Nivin Pauly

The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Vaikom has directed its Junior Superintendent to initiate criminal prosecution against film producer P.S. Shamnas for filing a false affidavit before the court for the registration of a FIR against actor Nivin Pauly.

Shamnas had made allegations against Nivin and producer Abrid Shine that they cheated him of ₹1.9 crores. The FIR against Nivin and Abrid was registered on the basis of a private complaint made by Shamas before the Magistrate. Following this, Nivin made a complaint before the Magistrate against Shamnas alleging forgery of his signature by the latter.

While considering the same, the Magistrate noted that Shamnas made a false, positive assertion in his affidavit filed along with his private complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS, which led to the registration of the crime against Nivin.

It was mentioned in the affidavit that no other legal proceedings between the parties were pending before any court of law when in fact, there was a case pending before the Commercial Court, Ernakulam and an injunction had been passed against Shamnas.

The Magistrate observed that this non-disclosure “undermined the authority and operation of judicial system by his wilful failure” and that a person swearing a false affidavit would be guilty of perjury and making false.

“JS is directed to comply with the mandate of filing a complaint u/s 379 BNSS as a matter of course by addressing the allegations in respect of offences u/ss 229, 236, 237 BNS, 2023 alleged to have been committed by the respondent. JS is also directed to ensure that such complaint shall be made in accordance with S. 379(1)(b) r/w 379(3)(b) of BNSS, 2023,” remarked Smt. Archana K. Babu, Magistrate.

Section 379(1)(b) r/w 379(3)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) deals with the procedure in cases of prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants for relating to documents given in evidence, including Sections 229 [Punishment for false evidence], 236 [False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence] and 237 [Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false] of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) .

In his complaint, Shamnas alleged that after the box office failure of Mahaveeryar—in which he had invested ₹3.5–4 crore—the accused promised him a co-producer role in Action Hero Biju 2 and overseas rights profits. He claims the accused later concealed title transfer details and used an outdated agreement to sell the film's overseas rights to a Dubai-based company for ₹5 crore, causing him wrongful loss.

Following the registration of the FIR, Nivin and Abrid had moved separate petitions before the High Court praying for quashing the same and the Court had granted stay of all further proceedings. In the plea before the High Court also, they have accused Shamnas of forging Nivin Pauly's signature in documents submitted to the Kerala Film Chamber of Commerce.

Recently, the High Court had extended the interim stay of proceedings after the mediation between the parties failed due to non-appearance of Nivin and Abrid. The cases will be considered again today.

Advocates T. Sukesh Roy and Meera Menon appeared on behalf of Nivin Pauly before the Magistrate. The case will be considered again on March 12.

Case No: Crl.M.P. No. 4220/2025

Case Title: Nivin Pauly v. P.S. Shamnas