The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot order criminal prosecution under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure merely because a pleading contains a "wrong statement." Setting aside orders passed by the courts below, the Bench held that the law requires a prima facie finding of a deliberate false statement and an independent satisfaction that initiating prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice.
The judgment came in a criminal appeal arising from proceedings initiated against a litigant and his lawyer over statements made in pleadings filed before an appellate court.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from a civil suit concerning property rights and an interim injunction. During the litigation, the appellant purchased the property and became a party to the suit. Later, the respondents alleged that certain statements made in a miscellaneous appeal and a stay application were incorrect and had resulted in an interim order being passed in favour of the appellant.
Following those allegations, proceedings under Section 340 CrPC were initiated. The appellate court concluded that there was a prima facie case to lodge a complaint against both the litigant and his counsel for offences relating to false evidence and false declarations. The High Court later upheld that order, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
A Bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar closely examined the scope of Section 340 CrPC and the offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court observed that the appellate court had only recorded that "wrong statements" were made. It had not recorded any prima facie finding that the statements were "false statements", which is the legal threshold required for offences relating to false evidence.
“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’,” the Bench observed.
It added that a false statement implies a deliberate intention to mislead or gain an undue advantage, whereas an incorrect statement may simply be an inadvertent mistake.
The Court further held that Section 340 CrPC requires courts to separately consider whether launching criminal proceedings is expedient in the interests of justice. Merely identifying an incorrect statement is insufficient.
“The forming of an opinion by the Court that holding of an inquiry is in fact expedient in the interests of justice is also a must,” the Bench said, noting that the appellate court had failed to record such satisfaction before directing prosecution.
Typographical Errors Considered
The Supreme Court also took note of an application filed much earlier by the appellant seeking correction of the disputed pleadings. In that application, the counsel had explained that certain words had been wrongly typed by a stenographer and admitted that the mistakes had escaped notice before filing.
The Bench found that these explanations were placed on record well before the application under Section 340 CrPC was filed. It observed that inadvertent typographical errors could amount to "wrong statements" but not necessarily "false statements" carrying an intention to deceive.
The Court also held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by improving the reasoning of the original order. While the lower court had referred only to "wrong statements", the High Court proceeded to record findings regarding false affidavits and the necessity of prosecution, even though such findings were absent from the original order under challenge.
Decision
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the order dated 19 January 2006 passed by the 7th Additional District Judge, Nagpur, and the judgment dated 14 August 2012 of the High Court. It dismissed the application filed under Section 340 CrPC and held that no case had been made out for initiating criminal proceedings against either the litigant or his counsel.
The Court also reiterated that proceedings under Section 340 should ordinarily be considered after the conclusion of the main case so that they do not unnecessarily delay substantive litigation.
Case Details
Case Title: Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Another v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 1365 of 2015
Judges: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: 21 July 2026
