The Supreme Court has held that a court cannot direct the initiation of criminal prosecution under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) merely on a prima facie satisfaction that “wrong statements” were made in pleadings, emphasizing that there is a material legal distinction between making a “wrong statement” and a “false statement.” A Bench comprising Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside orders of the Bombay High Court and a Nagpur appellate court which had directed the filing of a criminal complaint against a litigant and his advocate under Sections 193, 199, and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
Background of the Case
The dispute arose out of a civil suit filed by Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar and another (plaintiffs/respondents) against the predecessors-in-title of Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram (first appellant/defendant). On April 3, 2001, the trial court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs’ occupation and allowing access to a water meter.
The first appellant purchased the suit property and was impleaded as a defendant on January 16, 2003. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) alleging breach of the injunction. On October 13, 2003, the trial court directed the defendant to restore status quo and issued a show-cause notice.
The defendant filed a miscellaneous appeal and stay application through his advocate (second appellant). On January 17, 2004, the appellate court stayed the trial court’s order. The plaintiffs then alleged that false statements were made in the appeal memo and stay application—specifically pointing out typographical errors where the word “dismissed” was typed instead of “disposed of”, and the word “no” was inadvertently omitted before “permanent structure”.
After a criminal contempt petition filed by the plaintiffs was closed by the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court with liberty to invoke Section 340 CrPC, the plaintiffs filed an application before the appellate court. On January 19, 2006, the 7th Additional District Judge, Nagpur held that a prima facie case of making “wrong statements” was established and ordered a complaint to be lodged before the Chief Judicial Magistrate against the defendant and his counsel under Sections 193, 199, and 200 IPC. An appeal filed by the appellants under Section 341 CrPC was dismissed by the Bombay High Court on August 14, 2012, prompting the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Appellants
Advocate Satyajit A. Desai, appearing for the appellants, submitted that the courts were not justified in directing the lodging of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC. It was argued that unless there was deliberate falsehood with an intention to deceive or mislead the court, such directions could not be issued.
The appellants pointed out that the errors were purely typographical mistakes committed by a part-time steno-typist. Furthermore, the appellants had already filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC on September 20, 2004, seeking correction of these typing errors and tendering an apology, well before the plaintiffs filed their Section 340 CrPC application on April 27, 2005. It was contended that there was no material to demonstrate any intention to make false statements or deceive the court.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Precedents
The Supreme Court observed that the court of first instance had merely recorded a finding that “wrong statements” were made, without recording any satisfaction that “false statements” had been made or that initiating an inquiry was “expedient in the interest of justice.”
Distinguishing between wrong and false statements, the Court observed: “There is a material difference between making a ‘wrong statement’ and ‘false statement’ in the context of Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code. A ‘wrong statement’ of fact may not always have the character of a ‘false statement’.”
The Bench further stated: “The threshold for initiating action for an offence punishable under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code is the making of a ‘false statement’ and not the making of a ‘wrong statement’. It is so because a ‘false statement’ denotes a deliberate intention in making such statement; in other words, it is a wrongful or erroneous statement made intentionally to gain an undue advantage.”
The Court highlighted that Section 340(1) CrPC mandates the formation of an opinion that an inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice, which cannot be ordered on the mere making of a wrong statement.
Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another (2005), the Court noted: “In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words ‘Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice.’ This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case.”
The Apex Court also referred to Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and another (1973), re-affirming: “Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency.” The Bench reiterated from the judgment that: “It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely, that the court should direct prosecution…”
Referring to the decision in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand and another (2024), the Supreme Court summarized that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC require: “(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); (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’…”
The Supreme Court also held that the High Court erred in converting the finding of “wrong statements” into a finding of “false affidavit” and supplying the missing element of “expediency” while deciding an appeal filed by the aggrieved appellants themselves.
Finally, referencing Iqbal Singh Marwah, the Court observed that Section 340 CrPC directions normally ought not to be made during the pendency of substantive proceedings, as parties often seek to invoke the provision merely to delay substantive adjudication.
Decision of the Court
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the order dated January 19, 2006 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Nagpur as well as the High Court judgment dated August 14, 2012. The application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 340 CrPC was dismissed.
Case Title: Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram and Another v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar and Another
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1365 of 2015
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: July 21, 2026
