Facts
The respondents (plaintiffs) had instituted a civil suit seeking injunction against the predecessors-in-title of the first appellant. During the pendency of proceedings, the first appellant purchased the property and was impleaded as a defendant. After proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, the defendant filed a miscellaneous appeal and a stay application. The plaintiffs alleged that the appeal and stay application contained false statements regarding earlier High Court proceedings and initiated proceedings under S.340 CrPC. The appellate court directed filing of a complaint against both the defendant and his counsel for offences under S.193, S.199 and S.200 IPC. The High Court affirmed that order, leading to the present appeal.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether a prima facie finding that "wrong statements" were made in pleadings is sufficient to invoke S.340 CrPC for prosecution under S.193, S.199 and S.200 IPC.
Court's Reasoning
(a) Distinction between "wrong" and "false" statements
The Court held that the trial court merely found that "wrong statements" had been made. A wrong statement is materially different from a false statement. A false statement necessarily imports deliberate intent to deceive or gain an undue advantage, whereas a wrong statement may arise from inadvertence or error. Since the statutory offences require prima facie satisfaction regarding false evidence or a false statement, the threshold under S.340 CrPC was not met. (Paras 10–11)
(b) Expediency in the interests of justice
The Court reiterated the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (2005) that prosecution under S.340 CrPC is discretionary and can be ordered only after recording satisfaction that such prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. The courts below omitted this mandatory requirement. Reliance was also placed on Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, which held that prosecution should be directed only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood. (Paras 7 & 12)
(c) Typographical mistakes
The appellants had already moved an application seeking correction of typographical mistakes before the S.340 CrPC application was filed. The explanation showed that the errors were inadvertent and did not indicate any intention to deceive. The Court also relied on James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand (2024), reiterating that prosecution should be initiated only in exceptional cases involving deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance. (Paras 14–17)
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of the appellate court and the High Court, and dismissed the application under S.340 CrPC.
Ratio
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’.
Relevant Para
Para 11
“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. Thus, the basic premise on which the Court proceeded to direct a complaint to be filed is erroneous and it does not satisfy the necessary threshold.”
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 724
Decided on: 21 July 2026
Case Title: Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Another v. Sou. Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Another
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan, J.; Atul S. Chandurkar, J.