Truth constitutes an integral part of our judicial system and therefore, it is the duty of every party to state in the pleadings the true facts and comes to the Court with clean hands.

However, there are certain litigants who are trying to pollute our judicial system by making a false claim and abusing the judicial process. It has, unfortunately, become the order of these days, false statements are made in the course of judicial proceedings even on oath and attempts made to substantiate these false statements through affidavits or fabricated documents with a calculated venture for achieving their goals for a false claim or to harass other parties. Such activities not only choke the justice delivery system but also shaking the confidence of the people and therefore, the parties are liable to face consequences for making a false claim.

Section 191 of I.P.C defines giving of false evidence as an offence while Section 193 I.P.C prescribes the punishment. If a statement or averment in a pleading is false, it falls within the definition of an offence under Section 191 of I.P.C. It is not necessary that a person should have appeared in the witness box. The offence stands committed and completed by the filing of such pleading.

Under Section 340 Cr. P.C. if 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 Subsection (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 a proceeding and in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary make a complaint thereof in writing and send it to a Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction take sufficient security for appearance for accused before the Magistrate or if necessary send the Accused in custody. The complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C required to be signed by the officer of court when the Complaint is made by High Court or in other cases by Presiding Officer of the Court.

The ‘preliminary inquiry’ in the second part of Section 340 is not mandatory. The use of the words ‘if any’ is clearly indicative. This is because situations can be such where there is strong suspicion, but there is not sufficient evidence to return a finding that it appears to have been committed. There can be cases where there is sufficient material on record to return such a finding. In the former case, a preliminary inquiry is necessary, in the latter case, it is not.

If the facts are sufficient to return a finding that an offence appears to have been committed and it is expedient in the interests of justice to make a complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court need not order a preliminary inquiry. But if they are not and there is suspicion, albeit a strong one, the Court may order a preliminary inquiry. For that purpose, the Court may also direct the State agency to investigate and file a report along with such other evidence that they are able to gather.

In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) 4 SCC 370, the question before the Supreme Court was when would the bar of Section 195(1) (b)(ii) Code of Criminal Procedure be attracted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the bar would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court.

In N. Natarajan Vs. B.K. Subha Rao reported as 2003 SCC (Cri) 437 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in criminal law a complaint under Section 340 Cr. P.C. can be invoked also by a stranger to the proceedings.

Section 2(c) of Contempt of Court Act, 1971 provides that who so ever scandalizes to lower the authority of any court or prejudices or interferes with the due course of any judicial proceeding or obstructs with the administration of justice in any other manner commits contempt of Court.

Section 209 of the I.P.C also provides that dishonestly making a false claim in a Court is an offence punishable with the punishment of imprisonment upto two years and fine. Section 209 I.P.C provides whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Airports Authority of India Vs. Hotel Leelaventure Ltd. reported as 2016 (159) DRJ 544 was held that Section 209 I.P.C was enacted to preserve the sanctity of the Court of Justice and to safeguard the due administration of law by deterring the deliberate making of false claims. Section 209 was intended to deter the abuse of Court process by all litigants who make false claims fraudulently, dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy. The Hon’ble Court Further held that the word “claim” in Section 209 of the IPC cannot be read as being confined to the prayer clause. It means the “claim” to the existence or nonexistence of a fact or a set of facts on which a party to a case seeks an outcome from the Court based on the substantive law and its application to facts as established. To clarify, the word “claim” would mean both not only a claim in the affirmative to the existence of fact(s) as, to illustrate, may be made in a plaint, writ petition, or an application; but equally also by denying an averred fact while responding (to the plaint/petition, etc.) in a written statement, counter affidavit, a reply, etc. Doing so is making a “claim” to the nonexistence of the averred fact. It is also held that a false “denial”, except when the person responding is not aware, would constitute making a “claim” in Court under Section 209 IPC. The word ‘claim’ for the purposes of Section 209 of the Penal Code would also include the defence adopted by a defendant in the suit. The reason for criminalizing false claims and defences is that the plaintiff, as well as the defendant, can abuse the process of law by deliberate falsehoods, thereby perverting the course of justice and undermining the authority of the law.

From the above discussion, a common thread can be culled out to hold the majesty of justice and perjury is required to deal with an iron hand to hold so that we all cherish the value of truth irrespective of the consequences.