LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws. This blog is only for information but not for legal opinions

Just for legal information but not form as legal opinion

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, July 25, 2026

Section 340 CrPC is not attracted merely because a pleading contains an incorrect or wrong statement. Before directing prosecution for offences under Sections 193, 199 or 200 IPC, the Court must record a prima facie finding that the statement is deliberately false, made with the intention to mislead the Court, and must further be satisfied that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. Mere inadvertent, typographical or innocent mistakes do not constitute perjury, nor do they justify prosecution under Section 340 CrPC. 2026 INSC 724

  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sections 340 & 341 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 193, 199 & 200 – Perjury – Wrong statement in pleadings – Whether every incorrect or wrong statement in pleadings justifies prosecution under Section 340 CrPC? – Held, No.

The respondents initiated proceedings under Section 340 CrPC alleging that the appellant and his advocate had made incorrect statements in a memorandum of appeal and stay application filed in civil proceedings. The appellate court found that "wrong statements" had been made and directed filing of a criminal complaint for offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC. The High Court affirmed the order and further observed that false affidavits had been filed. Whether the mere existence of wrong or incorrect statements in pleadings is sufficient to invoke Section 340 CrPC and direct prosecution for perjury? – Held, No.

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 340 CrPC can be initiated only where the Court forms a prima facie opinion that a person has deliberately made a false statement or given false evidence attracting the offences specified in Section 195(1)(b) CrPC, and further records its satisfaction that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. There is a material distinction between a "wrong statement" and a "false statement". An incorrect or erroneous statement resulting from inadvertence, typographical error or mistake does not by itself constitute a false statement punishable under Sections 193, 199 or 200 IPC. The Court must also independently consider whether the alleged falsehood has a serious impact on the administration of justice. Since the trial court had merely recorded that "wrong statements" were made, had failed to record satisfaction regarding expediency in the interests of justice, and the mistakes had already been sought to be corrected by an application explaining them as typographical errors, the initiation of prosecution was legally unsustainable. The High Court further erred in improving the reasons of the trial court by recording findings of "false statements" which had never been recorded by the original court. The proceedings under Section 340 CrPC were therefore quashed.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 340 CrPC is not attracted merely because a pleading contains an incorrect or wrong statement. Before directing prosecution for offences under Sections 193, 199 or 200 IPC, the Court must record a prima facie finding that the statement is deliberately false, made with the intention to mislead the Court, and must further be satisfied that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. Mere inadvertent, typographical or innocent mistakes do not constitute perjury, nor do they justify prosecution under Section 340 CrPC.  2026 INSC 724