Life Cycle of a Perjury Case

A Step-by-Step Guide to Perjury Proceedings Under Indian Law

Understanding the procedural stages of a perjury case helps individuals appreciate the importance of truthful statements before courts. It also explains how courts address deliberate falsehoods during judicial proceedings.

Perjury refers to the act of intentionally giving false evidence or making a false statement under oath in a judicial proceeding. Indian law treats perjury as a serious offence because false evidence can obstruct the administration of justice.

The offence of giving false evidence is defined under Section 191 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which corresponds to Section 227 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Similarly, punishment for false evidence appears under Section 193 IPC, which corresponds to Section 229 BNS.

However, courts do not initiate perjury prosecution automatically. Instead, the procedural mechanism for prosecuting perjury appears under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which corresponds to Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Therefore, courts follow a structured legal process before prosecuting a person for perjury. The following stages explain the life cycle of a perjury case.

1. Legal Foundation of Perjury Proceedings

First, it is important to understand the statutory framework governing perjury. Indian law defines the offence of giving false evidence under Section 191 IPC / Section 227 BNS. This provision applies when a person knowingly makes a false statement under oath or during a legally binding declaration.

Furthermore, the law prescribes punishment under Section 193 IPC / Section 229 BNS for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating evidence during judicial proceedings.

However, the court must follow a specific procedural safeguard before initiating prosecution. The procedure for initiating such prosecution appears under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS.

Consequently, the court must determine whether prosecuting the offender serves the interests of justice.

2. Stage One: Occurrence of a False Statement or False Evidence

Typically, a perjury issue arises during an ongoing judicial proceeding. For instance, a party, witness, or deponent may submit an affidavit or give oral testimony before the court.

If that person knowingly makes a false statement regarding a material fact, the statement may constitute perjury.

However, not every incorrect statement amounts to perjury. Instead, the prosecution must establish that the person intentionally made a false statement with the objective of misleading the court.

Therefore, courts examine the intention and materiality of the statement carefully before taking further action.

3. Stage Two: Identification of False Evidence

Next, the court or an affected party may identify contradictions or inconsistencies in the statements made during the proceedings.

For example, later evidence may contradict an earlier affidavit or testimony. In such situations, the court may suspect that the person deliberately made a false statement.

Consequently, the affected party may bring this issue to the court’s attention. Typically, the party files an application seeking initiation of perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS.

This application must clearly demonstrate that the false statement was deliberate and materially affected the case.

4. Stage Three: Filing of an Application for Perjury Proceedings

After identifying the alleged false statement, the aggrieved party may file a formal application before the same court where the false statement occurred.

The application usually specifies the exact portion of the affidavit, pleading, or testimony that allegedly contains false information. Furthermore, the applicant must explain how the statement misled the court or interfered with the administration of justice.

The court then examines the application along with the entire record of the case.

5. Stage Four: Preliminary Inquiry by the Court

Subsequently, the court conducts a preliminary inquiry before initiating prosecution.

At this stage, the court examines the record of the proceedings and evaluates the nature of the alleged false statement. The court must determine whether the statement was knowingly false and whether it affected the outcome of the case.

Importantly, the court also evaluates whether initiating prosecution would serve the interests of justice. Courts avoid initiating perjury proceedings for minor or immaterial inaccuracies.

Therefore, this stage acts as a safeguard against unnecessary criminal prosecution.

6. Stage Five: Court’s Decision to Initiate Perjury Proceedings

If the court finds sufficient grounds, it may decide to initiate perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS.

At this stage, the court records a finding that prosecution appears necessary in the interests of justice. The court then directs the filing of a formal complaint before a competent Magistrate.

The court may also authorize an officer of the court to file the complaint.

Consequently, the matter moves from the original civil or criminal proceeding to a separate criminal prosecution.

7. Stage Six: Filing of Complaint Before the Magistrate

After the court passes the necessary order, the authorized officer files the complaint before the appropriate Judicial Magistrate.

The Magistrate then takes cognizance of the offence based on the court’s complaint. Subsequently, the Magistrate registers the criminal case against the accused person.

The court then issues summons directing the accused to appear before the court.

Thus, the perjury matter formally enters the criminal trial stage.

8. Stage Seven: Appearance of the Accused and Framing of Charges

After receiving the summons, the accused appears before the Magistrate.

The Magistrate explains the allegations relating to the offence of giving false evidence under Section 193 IPC / Section 229 BNS.

Next, the Magistrate examines the available material to determine whether sufficient grounds exist to proceed with the trial.

If the court finds adequate evidence, it frames formal charges against the accused. The accused then enters a plea of guilty or not guilty.

9. Stage Eight: Evidence and Trial

Once the trial begins, the prosecution presents evidence to prove that the accused intentionally gave false evidence.

For instance, the prosecution may produce affidavits, court records, and witness testimony to demonstrate the falsity of the statement.

Additionally, the accused has the right to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. After the prosecution concludes its evidence, the accused may present defence evidence.

The defence may argue that the alleged false statement resulted from misunderstanding, mistake, or lack of intention.

10. Stage Nine: Final Arguments

After completion of the evidence stage, both parties present final arguments before the Magistrate.

The prosecution attempts to prove that the accused knowingly made a false statement with the intention to mislead the court.

Conversely, the defense attempts to demonstrate absence of intention or lack of material impact on the case.

The Magistrate carefully evaluates the evidence, statutory provisions, and legal precedents before delivering the judgment.

11. Stage Ten: Judgment and Sentencing

Finally, the Magistrate delivers the judgment after considering the entire record of the case.

If the court finds the accused guilty, it may impose punishment under Section 193 IPC / Section 229 BNS. The punishment may include imprisonment, fine, or both.

However, if the court finds insufficient evidence to establish intentional falsehood, it acquits the accused.

Thus, the judgment concludes the criminal trial stage of the perjury case.

12. Appeal and Post-Judgment Remedies

After the judgment, the aggrieved party may file an appeal before the appropriate appellate court.

The appellate court reviews the legality and correctness of the judgment. It may confirm, modify, or set aside the decision depending on the merits of the case.

Additionally, further remedies may be available before higher courts according to the applicable legal provisions.

Conclusion

Perjury proceedings play a critical role in maintaining the integrity of the judicial system. False statements can seriously undermine the administration of justice and delay the resolution of disputes.

Therefore, Indian law provides a structured mechanism under Section 340 CrPC / Section 379 BNSS to identify and prosecute individuals who intentionally mislead the court.

Understanding the life cycle of a perjury case helps litigants recognise the serious consequences of making false statements in court. Ultimately, honesty and accuracy remain fundamental to the proper functioning of the justice system.

Other Life Cycles: DV Case Lifecycle || Maintenance Case u/s 125 CrPC Lifecycle. Index is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

M/s Jindal Polyster Ltd Vs Rahul Jaura on 18 Oct 2005 – Judgment Summary

Posted on March 8 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Delhi High Court examined a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging a trial court order. The dispute arose in a recovery suit where the defendant denied appointing the plaintiff as an insurance consultant. Later, the defendant realised that the denial resulted from confusion regarding the company’s earlier name. The defendant then sought amendment of the written statement.

The plaintiff opposed the amendment and also filed an application under Section 340 CrPC (Section 379 BNSS) alleging perjury.

The High Court examined whether the amendment should be allowed and whether such allegations should affect the amendment request.

The following paragraphs explain the reasoning that led to the final decision.

“The defendant then realized its mistake because the earlier name of the defendant-company was ‘M/s Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’ and ‘Hindustan Synthetic Fibres’ was a division of ‘Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’. In the year 1992 the name ‘Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’ was changed to ‘Jindal Polysters and Steel Limited’, which name was again changed to ‘Jindal Polysters Limited’ in the year 1995.”

“The explanation given for the amendment was that there was a communication gap between the defendant and his earlier counsel and that Mr. Sumeet Maheshwari, who joined the defendant as Company Secretary in the year 1994 was not very much acquainted with the fact that the earlier name of the defendant company was ‘Hindustan Pipe Udyog Limited’.”

“After hearing both the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that so far as the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is concerned, it is established law that this has to be dealt with normally at the time of final disposal of the matter and after the trial court judge forms an opinion that an offence of perjury had been intentionally committed and that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge a complaint.”

“I find force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant that there was change of names repeatedly about the defendant company and the company could not run away with any averment about its denial of the appointment of plaintiff.”

Decision

The Delhi High Court allowed the petition and set aside the trial court’s order.

The Court permitted the amendment of the written statement under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. It allowed the amendment subject to costs of ₹10,000.

The Court also clarified that allegations under Section 340 CrPC (Section 379 BNSS) should be considered at the appropriate stage during the trial.

M:s Jindal Polyster Ltd Vs Rahul Jaura on 18 Oct 2005

Citation :2005:DHC:3716

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury proceedings is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Punjab Tractors Ltd Vs M/s International Traders Ltd and Ors on 18 Sep 2009 – Judgment Summary

Posted on March 8 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Delhi High Court decided an important issue on perjury proceedings under Section 340 CrP (Section 379 BNSS).

The defendants sought prosecution of the plaintiff’s officials for allegedly filing fabricated drawings and false statements. The court examined whether the circumstances justified criminal prosecution for perjury during civil proceedings.

The judgment clarifies that courts must exercise extreme caution before initiating perjury proceedings. Courts should order prosecution only in clear cases where conviction appears likely.

The following paragraphs explain the court’s reasoning that led to the final decision.

“21. Formation of prima facie opinion that a person charged has intentionally given false evidence is a condition precedent for directing lodging of a complaint. The existence of mens rea or criminal intention behind act complained of will have to be looked into and considered before any action under Section 340 of the Cr.PC is recommended.”

“22. The affidavits of Mr. Manrao and Mr. Rihal aforesaid were in the nature of pleadings of the plaintiff. The court must be very cautious in its approach in prosecuting a person for making any statement claimed to be false in regard to a pleading, so that party’s right to plead freely is not curtailed.”

“23.It cannot also be lost sight of that in criminal prosecution there is waste of public funds and time of courts. For this reason also in every case of perjury the court would not mechanically take cognizance or direct prosecution. Prosecution should be ordered only when it is considered expedient and in the interest of justice to punish the delinquent.”

“24. There is yet another principle of law though relating to witnesses. A witness is entitled to an opportunity to correct himself. In the present case, Mr. Rihal during the cross examination admitted two mistakes in the drawings alleged to be fabricated. Mr. Rihal having corrected himself, ought not to be prosecuted.”

Decision

The Delhi High Court dismissed the defendants’ application under Section 340 CrPC (Section 379 BNSS).

The court held that the facts did not justify prosecution for perjury. The alleged discrepancies in drawings did not establish deliberate falsity or criminal intent.

The court also noted that excessive perjury prosecutions may defeat the purpose of justice.

Punjab Tractors Vs International Tractors on 18 Sep 2009

Citation :167 (2010) DLT 490

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Posted on March 7 by ShadesOfKnife

The High Court held that initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was justified where the court found possible false statements regarding employment in a maintenance petition. The Court observed that such proceedings aim to protect the sanctity of judicial processes.

The Court ruled that the truth of the allegations must emerge during the enquiry. It dismissed the appeal and allowed the perjury proceedings to continue.

The following extracts form the basis of the Court’s reasoning.

“Admittedly, the dispute is between appellant No.1 and respondent No.1, who are husband and wife. Due to the matrimonial discord, appellant No.1 left the matrimonial home on 25.09.2017 and both of them started living separately.”

“A perusal of the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. makes it evident that if the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 195… such Court after such preliminary enquiry is competent to order the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to carry out a thorough enquiry by affording opportunity to both the sides for establishing the truthfulness in the allegations.”

“Initiation of the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in itself cannot be said to be punitive. Rather the same is expedient in the interest of justice for maintaining the sanctity of the judicial proceedings.”

“After hearing the counsel for the appellants and perusing the record… this Court is of the opinion that the impugned complaint and impugned orders suffer from no illegality.”

Decision

The High Court dismissed the appeal.

It upheld the Family Court’s decision to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Court held that such enquiry was necessary to determine the truth of the alleged false statements regarding employment.

However, the Court clarified that its observations would not influence the trial court during further proceedings.

Kamaljeet Kaur Vs Harbhajan Singh on 26 Aug 2022

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Posted on March 4 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Allahabad High Court held that when a party files an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging false affidavit, the Family Court must decide that application before proceeding with the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that failure to do so vitiates the maintenance order if it relies on the disputed affidavit. The High Court set aside the maintenance order and directed the Family Court to first decide the perjury application within a fixed time frame.

“It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Family Court without deciding the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has proceeded with the case and decided the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and maintenance has been awarded on relying the false affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.”

“Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State do not dispute the aforesaid legal position.”

“In view of above the criminal revision is allowed. The judgement and order dated 14.06.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.- 502 of 2020 is set aside.”

“Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1/court concerned is directed to decide the application filed by revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Application No. 473 of 2022 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, and thereafter the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, without granting undue adjournments to either of the parties unless there is any legal impediments.”

Decision

The High Court allowed the criminal revision.

It set aside the maintenance order.
It directed the Family Court to first decide the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application.
It ordered that the maintenance case proceed only thereafter.

Amit Bajpai Vs State of UP on 15 Dec 2023

Citation :2023:AHC:238266

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com.,LL.B.,LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha on 31 Aug 2021

Posted on March 3 by ShadesOfKnife

The Karnataka High Court held that when a court records a specific finding that a party suppressed material facts on oath, it cannot dismiss a perjury application as premature merely because the main case remains pending. The Court ruled that allegations of false evidence affect the purity of judicial proceedings and require prompt consideration. It set aside the Family Court’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.

The following paragraphs form the foundation of the Court’s decision.

Para 4(a):
“…If these IT Returns are taken into consideration, the respondent is having income and she is also earning income… She has not filed any counter to the objections filed by the petitioner and also with respect to these IT Returns. In fact, by filing a complaint she has admitted that she has filed Income Tax Returns… Under such circumstances, she has suppressed the fact that she was earning income…”
Para 4(b):
“…when the Court below has recorded a specific finding as to the income of the respondent from the medical profession that too on the basis of undisputed IT Returns for the relevant period; when it has also recorded a specific finding that the respondent has suppressed the fact that she was earning income; that being the position, the application of petitioner for initiating action for the offence of perjury, could not have been turned down as being premature merely because main matter is still pending…”
Para 4(c):
“…act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies; consideration of complaints with regard to the same cannot be deferred or delayed; otherwise there is all possibility of the fountain of justice being polluted.”
Para 4(e):
“…applications of the kind need to be considered on merits at the earliest point of time so that a loud message goes to the unscrupulous section of the litigant public as to what would befall the perjuring parties.”

Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition.

It set aside the Family Court’s order.
It remitted the matter for fresh consideration of the perjury application.
It directed that the main matrimonial case remain in abeyance until such consideration.

All contentions remained open.

Praveen R Vs Arpitha on 31 Aug 2021

Citation :2021:KHC:33333

Other Sources :

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B, LL.M.

+91-9606345150

State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025

Posted on July 14, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A good judgment from this Magistrate, with legally-valid reasons and conclusions… and also directing perjury proceedings to be initiated…

From Para 26,

26. The first and foremost contention of the accused and their counsel is that FIR No: 488/2017 is barred by limitation, as such the court shall dismiss the proceedings and as per exhibit P1, the alleged last act of cruelty has taken place on 18.09.2012, so the limitation period was expired on 17.09.2015, but the report was given on 03.08.2017, therefore the proceedings are time barred u/s 468 Cr.P.C. while section 473 Cr.P.C provides an exception to bar of limitation, but its application is not automatic and there must be an explanation by the prosecution for such inordinate delay. Since the case is barred by limitation, the court is required to dismiss the proceedings. In support of his contention, he relied on the following judgments:
A. Kamlesh Kalra v. Shilpa Kalra & Ors. Reported in 2020 0 Supreme (SC) 605 wherein it was held that “ As regards, the finding recorded by the High Court in respect of complaint/FIR filed under Section 498A IPC, we are of the firm opinion that the same does not call for interference. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the FIR filed in this regard in 2015 was time barred, having been filed much more than three years after the separation of Manish Kalra(husband) and Shilpika Kalra (wife) and the filing of the divorce petition by the husband, both in 2009. In the facts of the case, the reasons given by the High Court for quashing the proceedings under section 498A IPC are justified and do not call for interference by this Court”.
B. Gudipati Mallikarjun Rao v. Gudiapati Saranya 2023 0 Supreme (A.P) 582 wherein it was held that “ In the circumstances, it would have to be held that the complainant, filed by the defacto complainant, is beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 of Cr.P.C”.
C. Arun Vyas & Anr. V. Anitha Vyas 1999 0 Crl LJ 3479 wherein it was held that “ the court cannot take cognizance of an offence under Section 498-A of IPC, if the FIR is time barred, unless the delay is properly explained and condoned under Section 473 of the CrPC”.
D. Korimerla Videesha Vs. State of A.P. wherein it was held that “ According to Rule 10 of the A.P. Dowry Prohibition Rules, any offence under Section 3 and 4 or any dispute under Section 6 of the Act shall be filed before expiry of one year and finalized within two years from the date of filing”.

From Para 28,

28. In the case on hand the alleged demand for additional dowry was finally made on 18.9.2012 and that is the last date of alleged harassment. Even if the evidence of P.W.1 that the matter is place before the elders in 2013 has taken into consideration, the report is given after 4 years of said incident. But the report was given on 03.08.2017 i.e after 4 years of alleged harassment. So it can be safely conclude that the report is barred by limitation and the court has no power to take cognizance.

From Paras 36-37,

36. He further submitted that the conduct of P.W.1 amounts to perjury and warrants initiation of appropriate proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C in order to uphold the rule of law and protect sanctity of justice delivery system. On perusal of the record it appears that after filing the petition under section 340 Cr.P.C., my learned predecessor in the office returned the petition with some objections and the said petition is represented. But the said petition is again returned with endorsement previous objections not complied with and at present the said petition is not pending before the court. Here it is pertinent to mention that after assuming charge of this court, the said petition did not come before me and I have not given any assurance to the
counsel for the accused as mentioned in his written arguments.
37. During the cross examination P.W.1 denied that she completed her B.Tech in the year 2012. As per the evidence of D.W.1, Professor and controller of examination, JNTU Kakinada, P.W.1 completed her engineering graduation in April 2012 and on 16.10.2012 the student collected her provisional certificate from the college and as per the college rules, they cannot produce the provisional certificate of the student unless it is applied by the student. The evidence of D.W.1 clinchingly proves that P.W.1 completed her B.tech in April 2012 from JNTU. The evidence on record shows she intentionally denied that she completed her B.tech in 2012 and she has given false evidence on oath. Hence, she is certainly liable for punishment for giving false evidence. Hence, the Superintendent of this court is directed to give report before 3rd Add. Chief Judicial Magistrate Court against P.W.1 for giving false evidence.

From Paras 39, 41 and 42,

39. Learned counsel for the accused further contended that despite clear admissions of P.W.1 about unregistered land sale deeds dated 31.05.2010, 27.06.2011, this court refused to mark the said photocopies solely on the ground that they were not originals and this refusal is patently erroneous and it is settled law u/s 65 (c) of Indian Evidence Act, the secondary evidence is admissible where the original is lost or not in the possession of the party and a proper foundation is laid.
41. To mark the photocopies of documents, the party who intends to mark shall explain where is the original and as to why he is marking the photocopies of the documents. If the document is with the other party, first he has to give notice to the other party and even after receiving notice the other party fails to produce the document, then he can mark the photocopy. If he lost the original then also he is entitled to mark the photocopy, but in the case on hand there is no material on record to show that the accused or prosecution has given notice to other party to produce the documents and that the originals were lost. Without complying the conditions of section 65 of Indian Evidence Act, blaming this Court that the decision of the court is erroneous is not acceptable.
42. Learned counsel for the accused mentioned in his written arguments that the non production of the original unregistered sale deeds was reasonably explained during cross examination and it was put to P.W.1 that since accused no longer had access to the original land sale deeds dated. 31.05.2010 and 27.06.2011 since the property was transferred to Ch. Appala Raju and the denial of suggestion does not itself negate the reasonable explanation offered by the accused. On perusal of entire cross examination of P.W.1 it appears no such suggestion was given to P.W.1. As such the
contention of counsel for accused that they have given reasonable explanation for not filing the originals is not at all acceptable.

State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025

Index of perjury judgments is here.

Cases where Perjury Proceedings were initiated

Posted on July 3, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

This page lists some cases where Criminal Proceedings were initiated for committing the offence of Perjury under IPC 1872/BNS 2023.

State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025 [Senior Civil Judge Court, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh]

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Cases where Perjury Proceedings were initated

Life Cycle of a Perjury Case

1. Legal Foundation of Perjury Proceedings

2. Stage One: Occurrence of a False Statement or False Evidence

3. Stage Two: Identification of False Evidence

4. Stage Three: Filing of an Application for Perjury Proceedings

5. Stage Four: Preliminary Inquiry by the Court

6. Stage Five: Court’s Decision to Initiate Perjury Proceedings

7. Stage Six: Filing of Complaint Before the Magistrate

8. Stage Seven: Appearance of the Accused and Framing of Charges

9. Stage Eight: Evidence and Trial

10. Stage Nine: Final Arguments

11. Stage Ten: Judgment and Sentencing

12. Appeal and Post-Judgment Remedies

Conclusion

M/s Jindal Polyster Ltd Vs Rahul Jaura on 18 Oct 2005 – Judgment Summary

Decision

Punjab Tractors Ltd Vs M/s International Traders Ltd and Ors on 18 Sep 2009 – Judgment Summary

Decision

Kamaljeet Kaur and Anr Vs Harbhajan Singh and Anr on 26 Aug 2022

Decision

Amit Bajpai Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 15 Dec 2023

Decision

Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha on 31 Aug 2021

State of AP Vs Matham Vijaya Rao and Anr on 07 Jul 2025

Cases where Perjury Proceedings were initiated