- within Criminal Law topic(s)
- within Family and Matrimonial, Privacy and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)
- with readers working within the Law Firm industries
In Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Anr. v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Anr., 2026 INSC 724, the Supreme Court clarified the threshold for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) for alleged false statements made in judicial proceedings. The Court held that a mere finding that a party has made a “wrong statement” is insufficient to initiate criminal proceedings. There must be material indicating a deliberate falsehood, and the Court must additionally be satisfied that initiating an inquiry is “expedient in the interests of justice.”
Brief Facts
The dispute arose in civil proceedings concerning the use and enjoyment of certain property. During the proceedings, the appellants challenged an order passed under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and filed an appeal along with an application for stay.
The respondents alleged that certain statements made in the memorandum of appeal and stay application were false and moved an application under Section 340 CrPC, seeking initiation of criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC.
The appellate Court found that “wrong statements” had been made and directed filing of a criminal complaint. The High Court declined to interfere. The matter thereafter reached the Supreme Court.
Mere “Wrong Statement” Is Not Sufficient for Perjury Proceedings
The Supreme Court emphasised that Section 340 CrPC involves two distinct requirements.
First, the Court must form a prima facie opinion that an offence covered by Section 195(1)(b) CrPC appears to have been committed.
Second, even where such a prima facie case exists, the Court must independently consider whether it is “expedient in the interests of justice” to initiate an inquiry.
The Court reiterated that prosecution under Section 340 is not automatic merely because an allegedly false statement has been made in a judicial proceeding.
Supreme Court’s Earlier Guidance in Iqbal Singh Marwah
The Court relied upon the Constitution Bench judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, 2005 INSC 129, wherein, the Constitution Bench held that the court has discretion whether to initiate a complaint, and that the decisive consideration is whether such action is expedient in the interests of justice. This expediency is to be judged not by the magnitude of the injury suffered by the person affected by the forgery or forged document, but by the effect or impact that the commission of the offence has on the administration of justice
James Kunjwal: Deliberate Falsehood and Reasonable Foundation Required
The Supreme Court also placed reliance on its judgment in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., 2024 INSC 601, which comprehensively considered the principles governing initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
In the said case, the Supreme Court summarised the governing requirements, holding that:
- the Court must form a prima facie opinion that there are sufficient and reasonable grounds to initiate proceedings;
- prosecution should be initiated only when it is “expedient in the interests of justice”, and not merely because of an innocent or immaterial inaccuracy;
- there must be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;
- there must be a reasonable foundation for the charge supported by distinct evidence and not mere suspicion; and
- proceedings should be confined to exceptional circumstances, such as where a party has deliberately perjured itself to obtain a beneficial order from the Court.
Distinction Between a “Wrong” and a “False” Statement
A significant aspect of the judgment is the distinction between a wrong statement and a false statement.
The Court noted that the expression “wrong statement” does not necessarily establish the commission of an offence under Sections 199 or 200 IPC. A false statement requires something more than mere inaccuracy or error. It involves an element of deliberateness and knowledge of the falsity.
The Court observed:
“The gravity of a statement that is false is definitely greater than that of a statement that is wrong.”
The Court explained that an inadvertent error or incorrect assertion may constitute a wrong statement, whereas a false statement involves an intention to deceive coupled with knowledge, actual or constructive, of its falsity.
Inadvertent Errors Do Not Automatically Constitute Perjury
The Court also considered the explanation offered by the appellants that the disputed statements resulted from mistakes in drafting and typing and that corrections had subsequently been sought.
In these circumstances, the Supreme Court found that the material did not justify treating the statements as deliberate falsehoods warranting criminal prosecution.
“Expedient in the Interests of Justice” Is an Independent Requirement
The Supreme Court further held that even a prima facie case of an offence does not automatically require filing of a criminal complaint.
The Court must separately consider whether prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. This requirement cannot be treated as a formality.
Held
The Supreme Court observed that the appellate court's order failed to satisfy either of the requirements for directing initiation of criminal proceedings, and accordingly quashed the said order.
The Supreme Court also found fault with the High Court for recording findings that were not contained in the original order. The Court further held that the High Court could not improve upon the original order in an appeal filed by the aggrieved party, thereby placing the appellants in a worse position than they were in before.
Conclusion
The judgment reinforces that Section 340 CrPC is an exceptional mechanism, not a routine remedy for inaccuracies in judicial pleadings. A mere “wrong statement” or inadvertent error cannot, by itself, justify criminal prosecution. The Court must identify a deliberate and material falsehood, supported by distinct evidence, and must independently be satisfied that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. The ruling therefore places a clear judicial threshold against converting ordinary errors or disputed pleadings into collateral perjury proceedings.
Authored by
Rajat Jain, Advocate
Vaish Associates Advocates
Email id: rajatjain@vaishlaw.com
Mobile No. 9953887311
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rajat-jain-75772398/
© 2026, Vaish Associates Advocates,
All rights reserved
Advocates, 1st & 11th Floors, Mohan Dev Building 13, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi-110001 (India).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist professional advice should be sought about your specific circumstances. The views expressed in this article are solely of the authors of this article.
