Perjury Proceedings Cannot Be Initiated On Mere Suspicion, Clear Evidence Required: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has reiterated that proceedings for perjury cannot be initiated on the basis of mere suspicion or conjecture and must be supported by clear and convincing evidence demonstrating the commission of the offence.

The bench of Justice Tejas Karia made the observation while dealing with applications arising in a trademark dispute filed by Britannia Industries Ltd. concerning the use of the mark “GOOD DAY” in relation to the sale of soan papdi products.

Rejecting a plea seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against the plaintiff and its representative Mr. Omar Waziri, the Court reaffirmed the settled legal position that such proceedings must be invoked with caution and only where clear evidence exists.

“It is settled law that perjury proceedings cannot be initiated on mere surmise or suspicion and that there must be clear evidence of the commission of the offence of perjury. In the present case, in view of the foregoing analysis, it is clear that the Defendants’ case is based on mere surmise and conjecture, and there is no unimpeachable evidence against the Plaintiff making out a prima facie case for the initiation of proceedings under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS,” the Court observed.

The dispute arose out of a suit filed by Britannia Industries Ltd. against Desi bites Snacks Private Limited alleging unauthorised use of the mark “GOOD DAY” in relation to the sale of confectionery products including soan papdi.

During the course of the proceedings, the defendants filed an application under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against Mr. Omar Waziri and the plaintiff on the allegation that false statements had been made on oath before the Court.

The defendants contended that appropriate proceedings ought to be initiated as the plaintiff had allegedly made incorrect statements in its pleadings and had placed inaccurate records before the Court. The plaintiff, however, strongly opposed the plea and submitted that no case was made out for initiating perjury proceedings.

The Court noted that the allegations essentially stemmed from a discrepancy relating to the corporate identity of Defendant No. 1. The plaintiff had placed on record an extract from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs showing the name “DESI BITES FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED,” whereas the correct corporate name was “DESIBITES SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED.”

The discrepancy involved the insertion of a space between the words “DESI” and “BITES” and the substitution of the word “FOODS” in place of “SNACKS.”

Upon examining the material on record, the Court observed that the defendants themselves had used an incorrect description of the company name on their product packaging, where the name appeared as “DESI BITES SNACKS PRIVATE LIMITED,” again inserting a space between “DESI” and “BITES.”

The Court noted that the confusion appeared to have arisen because of the similarity between the incorrect name appearing on the defendants’ product packaging and the name mentioned by the plaintiff in its filings.

In these circumstances, the Court held that it could not be alleged that the plaintiff had deliberately placed incorrect records before the Court or had sought to mislead the proceedings.

The Court also observed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the plaintiff had any prior knowledge of the alleged connection between Defendant No. 1 and Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal, in whose name the subject mark stood registered for papad under Class 30.

Accordingly, the Court rejected the defendants’ contention that the plaintiff had deliberately suppressed facts or made false statements in its pleadings.

“It is clear that no case has been made out against the Plaintiff suggesting that there was deliberate suppression, concealment or misrepresentation on its part. Therefore, there is nothing on record to satisfy this Court that the Plaintiff’s application for amending the Plaint is mala fide in nature,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted that the plaintiff had moved an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking impleadment of M/s Jai Food Products and Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal as additional defendants, along with an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the plaint.

In this regard, the Court held that the proposed amendment was necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties and that courts should adopt a liberal approach while dealing with such applications so as not to impede the administration of justice.

The Court also dealt with the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff had deliberately based its claim on soan papdi despite being aware that Mr. Roop Chand Agarwal was engaged in the business of papad.

However, after examining the packaging of the defendants’ products, the Court noted that papad was merely listed among the other products sold by the defendants.

The Court held that merely mentioning papad in the plaint could not lead to the inference that the plaintiff had prior knowledge of any association between the defendant company and Mr. Agarwal.

In view of the material on record, the Court concluded that the allegations of deliberate falsehood or suppression were unsupported and did not satisfy the threshold required for initiating perjury proceedings.

The applications seeking initiation of perjury proceedings were accordingly dismissed.

Case Title: Britannia Industries Ltd. v. Desibites Snacks Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia

Date of Judgment: 28.02.2026