Prosecution for perjury requires proof of deliberate mens rea and conscious intent to mislead the court.

The petitioner originally filed W.P. No. 26076/2018 challenging a show-cause notice and seeking the release of withheld retiral dues.

During those proceedings, the respondent (State/M.P. Road Transport Corporation) submitted an affidavit and verbal statements asserting that no recovery proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner.

The Writ Court subsequently quashed the notice on the grounds of inordinate delay.

However, the petitioner later discovered official orders dated 02.12.2019 and 03.02.2023, which indicated that recovery processes had, in fact, been set in motion.

Consequently, the petitioner moved this application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeking the initiation of criminal proceedings for perjury and fabrication of false evidence.

1. Whether the filing of an allegedly incorrect statement via affidavit regarding the status of recovery proceedings warrants the initiation of a criminal inquiry under Sections 215 and 379 of the BNSS.

2. Whether the standard of *mens rea* and "expediency in the interest of justice" required for a perjury prosecution was satisfied in the present circumstances.

The Court applied Sections 215 and 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023 (corresponding to Sections 195 and 340 of the CrPC, 1973), which govern the procedure for prosecution for offences against the administration of justice.

The Court relied on any established judicial principle that prosecution for perjury is not a matter of course; it requires a finding that a false statement was made "deliberately and consciously" with the intent to mislead, and that such prosecution is "expedient in the interest of justice".

It further invoked the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 482 of CrPC).

The Court observed that the power to initiate perjury proceedings is extraordinary and must be exercised with "great circumspection".

It reasoned that a mere incorrect statement is insufficient for prosecution; there must be clear evidence of *mens rea* (guilty intention).

Upon reviewing the records, the Court found that the discrepancy regarding the recovery proceedings likely arose from "differing interpretations" of the administrative status at the time, rather than a "conscious design" to subvert justice.

The Court noted that the petitioner failed to satisfy the "stringent standard" required to prove deliberate fabrication.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS is not a tool to continue a personal vendetta or *lis* between parties, but is reserved for cases where the administration of justice is "deliberately subverted".

It ruled that it was not "expedient in the interest of justice" to initiate criminal proceedings under the BNSS as the necessary elements of *mens rea* and conscious fabrication were absent.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.