The Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot direct criminal prosecution merely because a party has made “wrong statements” in pleadings prepared by counsel. 

The bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar has observed that only a deliberate “false statement”made with the intent to deceive can justify prosecution for offences relating to giving false evidence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 

The litigation originated from a civil suit involving a property dispute in Nagpur. During the pendency of the suit, the trial court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs’ enjoyment of the property and permitting access to a water meter for repairs.

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026

Subsequently, Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram purchased the property from the original defendants and was impleaded in the suit. After the trial court later found a prima facie breach of the injunction order and directed restoration of the earlier position, Masram challenged that order before the appellate court and sought a stay.

The plaintiffs alleged that the memorandum of appeal and the accompanying stay application contained incorrect statements regarding earlier proceedings before the High Court. Based on these allegations, they first initiated contempt proceedings before the Bombay High Court. Although the High Court declined to pursue contempt, it granted liberty to seek action under Section 340 CrPC. Acting on that liberty, the plaintiffs moved the appellate court seeking prosecution of both the litigant and his counsel for offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC. 

The appellate court concluded that a prima facie case existed because “wrong statements” had been made in the appeal and stay application. It accordingly directed filing of a criminal complaint against both the litigant and his advocate for offences relating to false evidence and false declarations. The Bombay High Court later affirmed that order, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court. 

Reversing the lower courts, the Supreme Court emphasised that the statutory threshold under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC is not the existence of a merely incorrect statement but a false statement made knowingly and intentionally.

The Bench observed that there is a material legal distinction between a “wrong statement” and a “false statement.” A wrong statement may result from inadvertence, typographical mistakes or human error. In contrast, a false statement implies a conscious intention to deceive and obtain an undue advantage.

According to the Court, the lower court had only recorded a finding that “wrong statements” were made. It had never recorded a prima facie satisfaction that the appellants intentionally made false statements, which is an essential requirement before directing prosecution for perjury-related offences. 

The Supreme Court explained that offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC punish intentional false evidence or knowingly false declarations. Therefore, before directing prosecution, courts must be satisfied that there is prima facie material showing deliberate falsehood rather than an innocent mistake.

The Bench held that an erroneous or incorrect statement does not automatically amount to a criminal offence and that the statutory requirement cannot be diluted by equating every inaccurate statement with a false declaration. 

The Court further found that the appellate court had completely failed to satisfy the second mandatory condition under Section 340 CrPC—namely, whether it was expedient in the interests of justice to initiate criminal proceedings.

Referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, the Supreme Court reiterated that prosecution under Section 340 CrPC is not automatic. Even if an offence appears to have been committed, the court must independently consider whether prosecution is necessary for protecting the administration of justice. 

An important factor that weighed with the Supreme Court was that, months before the Section 340 application was filed, the appellants had already approached the appellate court seeking correction of the alleged mistakes.

Their application explained that the errors had occurred because of typographical mistakes made by a part-time stenographer. The counsel admitted that he had failed to thoroughly verify the typed pleadings before filing them and tendered an unconditional apology. The corrections sought included replacing the word “dismissed” with “disposed of” and inserting the omitted word “not” where necessary. 

The Court held that these circumstances strongly indicated inadvertent drafting errors rather than any deliberate attempt to mislead the court. 

The Supreme Court also criticised the Bombay High Court for exceeding its appellate jurisdiction.

While the original court had only referred to “wrong statements,” the High Court went further and recorded that the appellants had filed a false affidavit and independently concluded that prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice.

The Supreme Court held that this effectively worsened the appellants’ position in an appeal filed by them and amounted to improving the reasoning of the impugned order—an approach that is impermissible in law. 

The Bench reaffirmed that prosecution for perjury must remain an exceptional remedy. Referring to earlier precedents, including Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and the recent three-judge decision in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, the Court reiterated that prosecution should ordinarily be directed only in cases involving glaring and deliberate falsehood where conviction appears reasonably likely.

The Court observed that innocent inaccuracies, immaterial mistakes or typographical errors should not invite criminal prosecution. Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC should be initiated only where there exists clear evidence of deliberate deception affecting the administration of justice. 

Before concluding, the Supreme Court reminded courts that applications under Section 340 CrPC are often filed to delay substantive civil proceedings. Relying upon the Constitution Bench ruling in Iqbal Singh Marwah, it observed that such applications should ordinarily be considered after the main proceedings conclude, rather than allowing them to derail ongoing litigation. 

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court quashed the orders directing criminal prosecution and dismissed the application filed under Section 340 CrPC. 

The Court held that the statutory prerequisites for initiating perjury proceedings had not been satisfied since the case involved, at best, inadvertent or typographical errors rather than intentional falsehood, and no finding had been recorded that prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice. 

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Murder Cases by Juveniles Above 16 Are ‘Heinous Offences’: Supreme Court