| ASPECTS | DETAILS |
| Case Title | James Kunjwal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Anr. |
| Introduction | The case became apparent from a bail cancellation application related to allegations under Sections 376 and 504 of the IPC. The appellant, James Kunjwal, challenged the High Court’s decision to file a complaint against him for filing a false affidavit. |
| Factual Background | The appellant was accused of establishing relations on the false pretext of marriage. Despite his bail being granted, the complainant sought bail cancellation, alleging contradictory statements and continued harassment through social media. The High Court noted the conflict in affidavits and directed a complaint for filing a false affidavit under Section 193 of the IPC. |
| Legal Issues | Whether the contents of the affidavit filed by the appellant constitute an offense under Section 193 IPC (Punishment for False Evidence). |
| Applicable Law | Sections 376 & 504 of IPC, Sections 193 and 195(b)(1) of CrPC, Constitution Bench judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam, and other relevant legal precedents. |
| Analysis | The court deliberated whether mere denial of facts constitutes perjury under Section 193 IPC. The prosecution of perjury should be carefully considered, focusing on deliberate falsehood rather than mere inaccuracies. It was also discussed that a court is not bound to file a complaint unless it’s expedient in the interest of justice, per various judgments cited. |
| Conclusion | The appeal examines the procedural and substantive aspects of filing complaints for false affidavits in court, reinforcing that prosecution for perjury should only be initiated in clear cases of deliberate falsehood. The decision to prosecute requires careful consideration of evidence and judicial discretion. |
| Current Scenario | The case is ongoing, with the Supreme Court of India reviewing whether the appellant should be prosecuted for perjury based on the false affidavit filed in the High Court. The legal framework and precedents surrounding perjury and false evidence are being scrutinized. |
CASE SUMMARY – The case involves James Kunjwal, accused of rape and harassment, who was granted bail. The complainant sought to cancel the bail, citing contradictory statements. The High Court directed a complaint against Kunjwal for filing a false affidavit. The legal issue centers on whether his actions constitute perjury under Section 193 IPC. The Supreme Court is now reviewing the matter, focusing on the legal thresholds for prosecuting perjury.
SOURCE: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
