Perjury - remedy

Read See S. 182 and S. 209 of IPC.

If the documents are filled with full intention of the Petitioner and or Respondent knowingly it to be false information and has been given voluntarily without pressure, coercion or inducement under a deposed sworn affidavit statement which he and or she knows or believes to be false. The false statement given before “public servant” by Applicant via legal guidance received from his / her Ld. Counsel and further Ld. Counsel deposing the deponent under a sworn affidavit amounts to invoking intention that the public servant may use his power to the injury or annoyance of any person.

You can ask under prayer to issue an order to invoke S. 2 (c) of Criminal Contempt of Court along with S. 182, S. 209 and S. 193 of Indian Panel Code as amended and uptodated on  Applicant / Respondent and on his / her Ld. Counsel present on record before the jurisdiction Hon’ble Court and ultimately process such summons as Jurisdiction Hon’ble Court may specify after examination of the facts and circumstances as set forth in his Reply

Prayer should also be for invoking S. 182 and S. 209 of Indian Panel. If sworn affidavit has been filled under legal guidance received from Ld. Counsel in presence before record – S. 193 of Indian Panel Code as amended and uptodated must be invoked against both of them.

You can also pray for "cost" too at the end of your prayer.



My relience to above said is based on my own research of following:



Arundhati Roy, In Re, (2002) 3 SCC, 343 refers

Where it was held : scandalising the authority of the court – a fair criticism of the conduct of a Judge, the institution of the judiciary and its functioning may not amount to contempt if made in good faith and in public interest. To ascertain the good faith and the public interest, the courts have to see all the surrounding circumstances including the person responsible for comments, his knowledge in the field regarding which the comments are made and the intended purpose sought to be achieved. All citizens cannot be permitted to comment upon the conduct of the courts in the name of fair criticism which, if not checked, would destroy the institution itself. Litigants losing in the court would be the first to impute motives to the Judges and the institution in the name of fair criticism, which cannot be allowed for preserving the public faith in an important pillar of democratic set-up i.e. judiciary. (Para 28)

It was further held in refers: on the basis of the record it is held that the respondent has committed criminal contempt of the Supreme Court by scandalising its authority with mala fide intentions and is, therefore, guilty of contempt of court punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act. (Para 33 and 31)

Reliance placed on legal meaning of S. 182 IPC which states:

 

False information, with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the

injury of another person - Whoever gives to any public servant any information which he knows or believes to be false, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that the will thereby cause, such public servant-

(a) To do or omit anything which such public servant ought not to do or omit if the true state of facts respecting which such information is given were known by him, or

(b) To use the lawful power of such public servant to the injury or annoyance of any person,

Scope: it is essential for a conviction under S. 182 IPC to prove positive knowledge or belief of the falsity of the information on the part of the informant. 

Comments on Statements: (i) “Giving information” – meaning and scope – volunteering information. – the plain ordinary meaning of the expression “giving information” is to volunteer information, not to make statements in answer to questions put by the public servant, and it would be importing into the section a meaning which cannot be presumed to have been contemplated by the Legislature to say that the section covers such statements.

“Which he knows or believes to be false” – A necessary ingredient of an offence under this section is that the information which the accused gave must have been known or believed by him to be false. (refers 1971, 1 Mad. LJ 497, AIR 1951, Assam, 54)

The requisite mens rea under this section must be established either by direct evidence or by the circumstances of the case and the conduct of the accused (refers AIR 1919 Pat. 511)

“Public Servant” – The public servant referred to in S. 182 IPC is the public servant to whom information is given and whose authority or lawful power is sought to be used for the purpose of injuring or annoying the other person.

“Clause (a)” – As per clause (a) it is the intention of the informant which matters and it does not depend upon what is done or omited by public servant on the receipt of the false information.

”Clause (b)” – By virtue of clause (b) the intention of the informant of a false information to the public servant must be to cause annoyance or injury to any person.

“Gives information” - The word “gives” means and connotes only one meaning that information has been given voluntarily without any pressure, coercion or inducement.

Moral turpitude – if therefore the individual charged with a certain conduct owes a duty, either to another individual or to the society in general, to act in a specific manner or not to so act and he still acts contrary to it and does so knowingly, his conduct must be held to be due to vileness and depravity.

Such offence falls under clause (b) that is where the false information is given with the intention that the public servant may use his power to the injury or annoyance of any person, will doubtless involve moral turpitude (refers Sita Ram Vs. Dist. Magistrate, 1957, All LJ, 383)

Reliance placed on legal meaning of S. 209 IPC which states:

Dishonestly making false claim in Court Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or 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.

Reliance placed on legal meaning of S. 193 IPC which states:

Punishment for false evidence

Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

And whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.