- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11759 OF 2023 BETWEEN: RAVINDRA KUMAR S/O CHENNARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O HAGGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MULBAGAL TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT - 562 157 &PETITIONER (BY SRI. VINAYA KUMAR N.D, ADVOCATE) AND: CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURTS CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101, REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 1. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.V. VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2022 IN PCR NO.3/2022 AND SUBSEQUENTLY NUMBERED AS C.C.NO.89/2022 ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, CHIKKABALLAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCE Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 P/U/S 340(1)(b), 3(b) R/W 195(1)(b), (1) AND SEC. 193 OF IPC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Vinay Kumar N.D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. B.V. Vidyulatha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.89/2022. The proceedings in CC.No.89/2022 has a history. Therefore, it is necessary to take a little walk in the history. A crime had been registered against one Shridhar in Spl. S.C. No.11/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The said case ends up in acquittal. In the said proceedings, the present petitioner tenders his evidence. The examination and cross- examination of the witness is as follows: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 "ÎÝ¿ À¬ ® ¼¯ ÀÎ 11/2021 ¥Áæ¸Á 02 ZÁ¸Á 05 ¾ À¾¼ (¹.Dgï.¦.67) ºÉýPÉ ºÁ¼É (..ÀÎ 57) ¬®ÎÎ ÀÎ 4 (¹«¯ï) 1ÎÝ ÎÍ ½" #$¾% ®¬Í& À¬ ¾'¾¾¯, *+¬-¾.®/¼ ÎÝ¿ À¬ ® ¼¯ ÀÎ: 11/2021 0¾1 12.04.2022 ¼®Í 3¾4¯¬Í5 6Î78 ® 9¾¯ 9¾:8¬Í. 3¾4;¾¼¼ ÎÀ¼Í :- ¼® Í9¾ ¬;Î ÎÀ¼Í :- <ά56¾¯®= ½¯ÀÍ> :- 27 ?;ÎÎÝ@ :- ÎÎA¾ ®B, ¬¼3¾®/¼ C¾ÀÀD¿ :- ½@G¬½H., ®Í¿IJ¾K¾Í L¾¾Î%Í (MN ¾®¼ ¬­½H ®Í¾¬¼ 3¾4¯ ÎÝHÎ ®Aί$¾7¬Í) ®ÍP <¾¼QÎ ÎÝ¿ 3¾½RB STUÝR"®:- 1. 3¾4;¾¼¼Í ¾@Î 6ÎÎÝ WÎÎX&¾%. Y¾À+ WÎάÍ&, ÎÝP WÎάÍ&, [ ݯ WÎÎX&¾%. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 2. ¾¬Í, 6ÎÎÝ, J¾À+, ÎÝP ¾@Î 6¾]ÎÝ^ _`aWÎ ¾Í¬¾ ¼½¼ ®Î¯c% J¾:WÎWÎ C¾À¼c¾%. 6ÎÎÝ Îή ®d-Î ]ÎÎLÎ eÝB¬c% 9¾¬¾­ÍX&®f ¬WÎ WÎÎX&¾%, 6ÎÎÝ Îή ®d-ί¬Í5 ¾®f R@Î+ 6ήÍÎÎ­Í ¬0¾%, _`aWÎ M¼Í½/®¬Í5 ¾¬Í ÎÎÝ:¾%, g ¬WÎG ÎÝHÎ BÝ:¾%. (g ½¬®c% ÎÝ¿ 3¾½RB STUÝR¼Í g 3¾4¯¬Í5 ® Xξ 3¾4 SL¾ ®"@i8 j¾`Ý ÀC¾¾Í 9¾­¾Í S¬Í®X ÎÝH®¼Í. STUÝR"WÎ S¬Í®X BÝ­$¾7¬Í) j¾`Ý ÀC¾¾Í: ÎÝ¿ 3¾½RB STUÝR"®:- 3. ¾¬Í, ¬¬5 3Î5Ýd¬6¾® ®Í6¾­½H. Y¾À+, ®Í¿IJ¾Kc¬ ÎÝP, 6¾]ÎÝ^ ¾@Î 6ÎÎÝ _`aWÎ ¬¼3¾®/¼®c%¼Í½ k¾a"WΠξÀÎ+ ÎÎÝ@ÍX&®Íf, ¾CÎ$¾% _`aWÎ 3ÎÝ" _®Î½6Î ½¿0® ÎÎÝ$¾¼ 6¾* lÎa¯ ¾Í¬$¾ ¼½¼ ®½: ®Î¯¬Í5 J¾:WÎWÎ ®AÎ0®Íf C¾À;Îfݽ/ m®6Î À"¯¾%. 6ÎÎÝ¯Í nÝB¬c% '¾C¾@¾Í Îή ®d-Î ]ÎÎLÎ À¾ÍWÎ7® 9¾¬¾­ÍX&®f¼Í m®6Î À"¯¾%. 4. 2020 kά ½"¯c% 6ÎÎÝ¯Í Îή ®d-ί¬Í5 ¾½/ C¾À®f ¼ÎoWÎ 6ήÍÎÎ­Í ¬®Í 0¬ ?H®ÍÎοI.½/;¾K ÎÝH ¼Îo¬c%¼Í½ ® LÎÝ Îά:¯c% S½¼Í _`aWÎ ?H®ÍÎÎ­Í ®¼Í0¬ ί¬Í5 C¾®ÀÍ> ¿Id8;¾f6ή6Î À"¯¾%. 5. M;¾® ¬¬¼ 6ÎÎÝWÎ ®®ÍCÎ 9¾:ÎοI.½LÎ Îή ®d-Î ÎÝH;¾@ BÝ¬Í mq.8 R¾@Î+ 3ÎÝ"¼Í½/®"® ®Î¯c% _®/=½/0¾%CÎ®Í X¼À+"8®f"® ®Î¼Í ÎÎ`a¼Í½/;¾K WÎÎL¾&7¬Í - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 m®6Î À"¯¾%. g ¬WÎG ÎÝHÎ BÝ:;ÎfÝή6Î À"¯¾%. ÎÝHί¬Í5 B 13 m®Í @ͼÍXÀ$¾7¬Í. j¾`Ý ÀC¾¾Í: 6ÎÎÝ ®¼ [ Ý..mq. ½rݾ"®:- M¾% (0¾1 12.04.2022 ¼®Í WÌ® ¾'¾¾¯®c% ¬N¬ ?&$ÎÝP¬®LÎ Jμ¿Í 9¾:À$¾7¬Í)." The petitioner tenders his evidence in the said crime in Spl. S.C. No.11/2021, which was for the offences as indicated hereinabove against one Bhaskar. While so saying, the petitioner appears to have deposed that the petitioner, Bhaskar, Shekhar and Rajesh were residing as tenants in the property owned by one Shakuntala - CW6. In the cross- examination, it is denied that all of them together were staying as tenants in the said premises. Therefore, a private complaint is made by the Chief Administrative Officer of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chikkaballapura against the petitioner, invoking the provisions of Sections 340(1)(b), 340(3)(b) read with 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC, which comes to be registered in PCR No.3/2022. The concerned Court then takes cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC on 30-05-2022 and a criminal case is registered against the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 petitioner in CC No.89/2022, which is called in question in the present petition. 3. There is contradiction, no doubt, between the examination and cross-examination, but the issue is the acquittal of the said accused in Spl. S.C. No.11/2021 rather ostensibly has not been ordered on the false evidence tendered by the petitioner. In the light of this admitted fact, the offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC for giving or fabricating false evidence before the concerned Court by the petitioner cannot spring, as it is necessary on the evidence that is tendered, which is later found to be false there should have been benefit taken by the accused. I deem it appropriate to quote the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of JAMES KUNJWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND1, wherein the offence of giving false evidence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC is interpreted, and it is held as follows: <&. &. &. 9. Hence, in the attending facts, the short question that falls for consideration of this Court is whether the contents of the affidavit filed before the High Court, as taken note of in the impugned order, constitutes an offence under Section 193 IPC, as defined in Section 191 IPC? 12024 SCC OnLine SC 1943 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 10. Section 191 IPC which defines the offence, reads as under:4 <191. Giving false evidence. Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Explanation 1.4 A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Explanation 2.4 A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know.= Section 193 IPC, under which the appellant is sought to be prosecuted is extracted below for reference. <193. 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. Explanation 1. - A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding. Explanation 2. - An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.= 11. Section 195(b)(1) of Cr.P.C. (relevantportionrepr oduced hereinbelow) provides that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence committed under Sections 193 to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 196, 199, 200, 205-211; except on the complaint in writing of the Court or by an officer of the Court, duly authorized. Section 340 mentions the procedure in respect of the prosecution as delineated under Section 195. <195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.4(1) No Court shall take cognizance4 (a) && (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Penal Code, 1860, namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) &.. (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub- clause (ii)& (2) & (3) & (4) &= 12. The proper approach in cases where Section 193 is in play, it has been held by this Court in Dr. S.P. Kohli, Civil Surgeon, Ferozepur v. High Court of Haryana Through Registrar [(1979) 1 SCC 212] as under: <16. It is true that what the courts have to see before issuing the process against the accused is whether there is evidence in support of the allegations made by the complainant to justify the initiation of proceedings against the accused and not whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant his conviction, but this does not mean that the courts should not prima facie be of the opinion that there are sufficient and reasonable grounds for setting the machinery of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 criminal law in motion against the accused. The moment this guiding principle is overlooked, the prosecution degenerates itself into persecution which often is fraught with evil consequences.= (Emphasis supplied) Referred to in Himanshu Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 884] 13. When prosecution should be sanctioned under this Section by Courts has been expounded on by a Bench of three learned Judges in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam[(1971) 1 SCC 774] <7. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge&= (Emphasis supplied) Referred to in Himanshu Kumar (supra); Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar [(2019) 3 SCC 318] 14. In this regard we may also notice the pronouncement in R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka [(2011) 5 SCC 689], referred to in Aarish Asgar Qureshi v. Fareed Ahmad Qureshi [(2019) 18 SCC 172] wherein it was observed: <9. Both these judgments were referred to and relied upon with approval in R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka [R.S. Sujatha v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 5 SCC 689 : (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 757] (at paras 15 and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 16). This court, after setting down the law laid down in these two judgments concluded : (SCC pp. 694-95, para 18) <18. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the inquiry/contempt proceedings should be initiated by the court in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the opinion that perjury has been committed by a party deliberately to have some beneficial order from the court. There must be grounds of a nature higher than mere surmise or suspicion for initiating such proceedings. There must be distinct evidence of the commission of an offence by such a person as mere suspicion cannot bring home the charge of perjury. More so, the court has also to determine as on facts, whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears to have been committed.= (Emphasis supplied) 15. The three essential factors which can be said to be sine qua non for the application of Section 193 IPC as held in Bhima Razu Prasad v. State Rep. by Deputy Supdt. of Police, CBI/SPE/ACU-II [(2021) 19 SCC 25] are:4 (1) false statement made on oath or in affidavits; (2) that such statements be made in a judicial proceeding; or (3) such statement be made before an authority that has been expressly deemed to be a 8Court9. 16. What we may conclude from a perusal of the above-noticed judicial pronouncements is that:4 (i) The Court should be of the prima facie opinion that there exists sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against the person who has allegedly made a false statement(s); - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 (ii) Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is <expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent= and not merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be innocent/immaterial; (iii) There should be <deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance=; (iv) The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion; (v) Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the Court. 17. The statement made by the appellant, that has been deemed to be befitting the offence of giving false evidence before the Court, which is known commonly as perjury, was more in the nature of denial of the statements made in the affidavits of the complainant herein. 18. We are of the view that, in the present facts, a denial simpliciter cannot meet the threshold, as described in the judgments above, particularly when no malafide intention/deliberate attempt can be understood from the statement made by the appellant in the affidavit. As has already been observed, mere suspicion or inaccurate statements do not attract the offence under the Section. It cannot be disputed that the statements made in the affidavit were only to state his version of events and/or deny the version put forth by the complainant.= (Emphasis supplied) - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 The Apex Court in terms of the afore-quoted judgment elucidates upon the circumstances where the offence punishable under Section 193 of the IPC can be invoked and holds that inaccuracy in the evidence cannot amount to perjury if such inaccuracy is immaterial to the case at hand. 4. In certain circumstances, documents produced or evidence led can itself become an offence, as it is the evidence that is tendered before the concerned Court. However, in the case at hand as observed hereinabove there is contradiction between the statement made in the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination. It was for the Court to decipher the evidence and render its judgment, which it has in fact done. The petitioner is now being tried for an offence in which the conviction is absolutely bleak. In that light, permitting further proceedings would only become an abuse of the process of the law. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1922 CRL.P No. 11759 of 2023 (ii) The proceedings in CC.No.89/2022 pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapur stands quashed qua the petitioner. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28