- According to the Supreme Court's ruling on Thursday, the phrase "falsely charges" in Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code refers to the original accusation that starts the criminal investigation, not false depositions or false evidence presented during a criminal trial.
- The Supreme Court emphasised that statements made with the purpose to trigger criminal legislation would qualify as "charges" under the Article.
- A Bench made up of Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and J.B. Pardiwala declined to begin such proceedings in response to a request made by the Union Government for the initiation of perjury proceedings against the petitioners who had filed a plea in 2009 seeking an independent investigation into the alleged extrajudicial killing of Adivasis in Chhattisgarh by security force.
- Alternately, it advised the State Government or the CBI to take necessary legal action against the petitioners in accordance with Section 211 IPC and other pertinent laws.
- According to Santokh Singh and Ors. v. Izhar Hussan and Anr, the Bench identified the following as the key components of the provision based on a review of Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code (false charge of offence made with intent to hurt).
- A person must not have been truthfully accused of committing an offence in the complaint
- The complainant must have understood there is no legitimate or reasonable basis for the charge at the time the complaint was filed.
- The complaint must have been made with the intent to have someone questioned.
- The bench held the conclusion that the term "false charge" in Section 211 should be interpreted in terms of its basic meaning and not in a restricted or technical sense, despite the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code does not define "charge" or "criminal proceedings."
- It was stated that because an affidavit is considered "proof" under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, swearing to a false affidavit would constitute perjury. Instead of determining whether the evidence is sufficient to establish a conviction, the relevant court is needed to determine if there is evidence to support the charge of perjury.
- The Bench cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, which stated that the court could determine that it is necessary in the interest of justice to conduct an inquiry when it appears that an offence has been committed in connection with a case pending before that court even without conducting a preliminary investigation as required by Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code or hearing the person against whom proceedings are to be brought.
- The matter is currently pending resolution after being forwarded to a larger bench.
- It was also noted that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had ruled in M.S. Sheriff and Others v. State of Madras and Others that the relevant court should not pronounce someone guilty or innocent when issuing a ruling under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
"Loved reading this piece by Twinkle Madaan?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
