Bombay High Court
Dharamdas S/O Melumal Ramani vs State Of Mah. Thr. Its P.S.O., P.S. Ajni ... on 29 April, 2026
2026:BHC-NAG:6684-DB
(1) appw.192.2015.Ord.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPW) NO.192 OF 2015
IN
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.297 OF 2011
Dharamdas s/o Melumal Ramani
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Ajni, Nagpur and another
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. P. S. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A. M. Joshi, APP for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Satish Uke - in person - applicant/respondent No.2.
CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.
CLOSED ON : 26/03/2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 29/04/2026
1. By this application, the applicant/respondent No.2 is seeking an action as per under Section 195 read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') against the petitioner contending that the petitioner has made false, scandalous, unfounded, scrupulous, allegations against him in the memo of petition.
The applicant is further seeking an
appropriate action against the petitioner for
misleading the Court and their act of fraud on Court. (2) appw.192.2015.Ord.
2. The respondent No.2 has filed the above said application contending that the petitioner has filed a criminal writ petition for quashing of the FIR registered against him in connection with Crime No.197/2008 and the consequent proceeding arising out of the same bearing charge sheet No.234/2009 as well as challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Criminal Revision Application No.606/2010, by which the application for discharge was rejected.
3. While preferring the criminal writ petition on a solemn affirmation, the petitioner has made a false statement in para No.4 as follows:
"That Satish Mahadeorao Uke by taking benefit of his position as a lawyer makes repeated complaints to the police and by his influence causes due harassment to innocent citizens."
4. The further pleading of the petition in the same para as "That the father of the respondent No.2 was also a retired policeman. It is by exploiting these police relations which he has developed (3) appw.192.2015.Ord.
because of he being belonging to a family a policeman, that the respondent No.3 has been successful in lodging these false FIR's."
5. The above said statement is false against the present applicant who is respondent No.2 to lower down his image and to cause the prejudice in the mind of the Court. In other connected matters also he made similar false statement against him and his family members. It is further contended that in writ petition in para No.5, further false statement is made by the petitioner as "That, the petitioner has been a victim of the similar complaints made by Satish Uke at about 15 - 20 complaints have been lodged against the present petitioner by the said advocate who has been using the complaints a tool to extract easy money by pressurizing innocent person of dire consequences." This statement is also false only to cause the prejudice against the applicant (respondent No.2). Similarly, he has made the false statement in Para Nos.6 and 7 which is mentioned in his application. Similarly in Para Nos.8 to 10. Thus, he submitted that the petitioner has filed the petition (4) appw.192.2015.Ord.
with above false submissions and thereby mislead the Court and therefore, the action under Section 195 read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is required against the present petitioner.
6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant who is respondent No.2. He has also placed on record the written submission in support of his contention. The first contention raised by him is that the petitioner has made fraud upon the Court by making false frivolous and misleading affidavit making false statement by twisting the material facts and thereby he has committed an offence of perjury therefore, it is expedient in the interest of justice that dishonest litigants must be prosecuted as per the provision of Section 195 read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C. He further submitted being the present application is filed by the applicant for taking action the petitioner - accused do not have right of hearing at the stage of enquiry under Section 340(1) of the Cr.P.C. He submitted that the catena of decisions dealt with this aspect and it is held that the application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. required to be considered (5) appw.192.2015.Ord.
wherein the petitioner accused has no role to play. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Harish V. Milani Vs. Union of India [Civil Application No.2939 of 2017 in Writ Petition No.14039 of 2017] dated 26.04.2018, wherein this Court has held that it would be just and proper to hear CA filed by the respondent under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. before deciding the writ petition. He also relied upon on the same judgment wherein it is held that before registering the complaint by the Magistrate under Section 340 of CrP.C. hearing the person against whom prosecution is likely to be instituted is not contemplated. A respondent who will face inquiry has every right to know and is to be heard in the proceeding once a complaint is registered and the proceedings are conducted under Section 340 of the Code to refer the matter for registering the complaint to the Magistrate under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
7. As far as this submission of the present applicant (respondent No.2) is concerned, it is well settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (6) appw.192.2015.Ord.
the case of The State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh, reported in (2020)12 SCC 96 by relying upon the ratio in the case of Pritish vs. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1 SCC 253 and in the case of Sharad Pawar v. Jagmohan Dalmiya, (2010)15 SCC 290. In the case of The State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh it is noted that three Judge-Bench in Sharad Pawar supra did not take note of dictum in Pritish and proceeded to hold that the proposed accused should be given an opportunity of hearing before the court directs a preliminary enquiry under Section 340(1) of the CrPC. The view taken by the Larger Bench in reference in The State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh supra by relying upon the constitution bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah, reported in (2005)4 SCC 370 to hold that there is no question of opportunity of hearing being given to the proposed accused under Section 340(1) of the CrPC. The Hon'ble Apex Court further opined that law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah was in line with dictum in Pritish and while answering the reference as to the whether an opportunity of hearing should (7) appw.192.2015.Ord.
be given to the proposed accused before the complaint is made under section 195 of the CrPC in negative.
8. Thus, the settled law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the accused do not have right of hearing at the stage of enquiry i.e. under Section 340(1) of the CrPC. Similarly, in Gurpreet Singh Kang vs. Gurpartap Singh, reported in 2013 SCC OnLine P&H 6599 wherein also it is held that summoning the accused for the purpose of holding preliminary enquiry will be the violation of the concept of criminal jurisprudence.
9. In the case of Partha Sarathy Saha vs. Nagpur District Court, reported in 2005 SCC OnLine Bom 634 wherein the co-ordinate bench of this court held that the accused has no right to be heard at the stage of enquiry under Section 340 of the CrPC or even when the complaint is filed before the Magistrate. Thus, it is consistent view that the accused has no right to appear and contest the present application.
(8) appw.192.2015.Ord. 10. The further submission of the learned
counsel for the applicant who is respondent No.2 that the statement of the petitioner in his writ petition "That the respondent No.2 has been indulging into causing serious harassment to the present petitioner and many other innocent persons in the city by lodging false criminal complaints and then dragging them in the court to face the long drawn trial and thus harassment for extracting easy money." The further statement "That said Satish Mahadeorao Uke has been indulging into making frivolous complaints in the Criminal Courts so also the revenue authorities against the innocent persons and in all his complaints he is the complainant in person." "That Satish Mahadeorao Uke by taking benefit of his position as a lawyer makes repeated complaints to the police and by his influence causes, undue harassment to innocent persons." "That the petitioner has been a victim of the similar complaints made by Satish Uke and about 15 - 20 complaints have been lodged against the present petitioner by the said advocate who has been using this complaints as tool to extract easy money by pressurizing innocent persons of dire (9) appw.192.2015.Ord.
criminal consequences." "That the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 started in the year 2002 when the property bearing field survey no.142 situated at mauza Pipala, District Nagpur was purchased by the petitioner from a Handicapped person Shri Pandurang Banait who was the then owner of the property." "That as the respondent was trying to interfere with the ownership and possession of the said property a suit came to be filed bearing Special Suit No.88/2002 before the Civil Judge Senior Division Nagpur. The respondent thereafter also filed a suit against the present petitioner and the same was registered as RCS No.1854/2002." and "That subsequently the said dispute between the parties came to be settled and a consent decree came to be passed dated 26.06.2002." The further statement that the allegation in the said complaint were in respect of the same property wherein the respondent has surrendered all his claim in view of the compromise and the consent decree." The false statements made by the petitioner only to cause the prejudice in the mind of the Court. These statements are made by him on oath and thereby action is (10) appw.192.2015.Ord.
required against him under Section 195 read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C. He submitted that in fact, he has purchased Survey No.142 situated at Mouza Pipala, District Nagpur by registered sale deed. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that applicant (respondent No.2) has purchased Survey No.142 by taking advantage of his position as a lawyer is false statement on oath. The applicant is in possession of the said land. As his possession was disturbed by original owner Pandurang Banait. He filed a Civil Suit No.1854/2001 i.e. prior to the suit filed by the said Pandurang Banait against him bearing Civil Suit No.88/2002. The Court after considering the pleading has granted the relief of interim injunction against the original owner. Thus, he submitted that in the light of the above fact, the statement made by the petitioner in the writ petition is apparently false. He further submitted that the contention of the petitioner that the applicant has filed various complaints against him and various citizens is also false and misleading statement. On the contrary, he submitted that the crime No.197/2008 was registered against the present (11) appw.192.2015.Ord.
petitioner under Sections 448, 389, 506(2) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, wherein after due investigation, the investigating agency has filed charge sheet against the present petitioner. He further submitted that Crime No.136/2006 was registered against the petitioner on the basis of a report by Smt. Khairunnissa Samad. Report of Superintendent of Police dated 05.06.2002 shows that despite Survey No.142 admeasuring 4.81 R was sold out to the applicant - respondent No.2 Satish Uke, original owner Pandurang Banait has preferred the Civil Suit, but prior to that the present applicant has preferred the suit wherein the said original owner Pandurang Banait was restrained from causing any disturbance to the peaceful possession of the present applicant by the competent Civil Court.
11. Thus, despite of the above fact, Sub-Registrar registered the sale deed in favour of the petitioner Dharamdas Ramani, which is executed by the original owner Pandurang Banait with the help of Shyam Moudkar who is not a registered petition writer. Thus, he submitted that the report of (12) appw.192.2015.Ord.
Superintendent of Police also shows the involvement of the present petitioner in various illegal activities. The information obtained from Sub-Registrar Office dated 23.06.2008 also shows that one of the co-accused Shyam Anandrao Moudkar is not a registered petition writer. Despite he is not the registered petition writer, the present petitioner with the help of him got executed the sale deed of the same property in his favour from the original owner. He further invited my attention towards the another Crime No.3008/2005 registered against the petitioner on 25.01.2005 under Sections 294, 506(B) wherein also after completion of investigation the charge sheet is filed. Thus, he submitted that all these aspects sufficiently shows that the statement made by the petitioner are not only false, misleading, scandalous before the Court and therefore, the action under Section 195 read with Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is required against the present petitioner. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of ABCD vs. Union of India, reported in AIR OnLine 2019 SC 1946, Criminal Application No.728/2017 [Fareed Ahmed Qureshi vs. The (13) appw.192.2015.Ord.
State of Maharashtra and another] decided on 07.03.2018. The order passed by this Court in Civil Application No.1282/2011 in Appeal From Order No.102/2011 [CTR Manufacturing Industries Limited vs. Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Private Limited and others] decided on 30.10.2012.
12. Before entering into the merits of the case, it would be appropriate to reproduce Section 340 of the Cr.PC, as under:
"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(14) appw.192.2015.Ord.
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by subsection (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed, -
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court [or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.] [Substituted by Act 2 of 2006, Section 6, for Cl. (b) (w.e.f. 16-4-2006). Prior to its substitution, Cl (b) read as under : - [(b) in by other case, by the presiding officer of the Court].] (15) appw.192.2015.Ord.
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195.
13. Section 195 (1)(b) of the CrPC is also relevant, which is also reproduced as under :
"195(1)(b)
(i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii)of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-
clause (ii), [except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate.] [Substituted by Act 2 of 2006, Section 3 for "except on the complaint in writing of that Court, of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate" (w.e.f. 16-4-
2006).]
(16) appw.192.2015.Ord.
14. Here in the present application, the
contention of the applicant who is respondent No.2 is that the scandalous, false allegations are levelled against him and therefore, the action is required. He vehemently submitted that the various statements made by the petitioner in the writ petition appears to be false in the light of the investigation papers as well as the various circumstances which are on record. The core of the submission of the applicant is that the entire pleading in the writ petition is false, scandalous and misleading, the Court which is sufficient to take action against him.
15. As far as the law regarding action under Section 195 read with Section 340 is concerned, the law is settled in the case of Dalip Singh vs. State of UP and anr, reported in (2010)2 SCC 114; Ramrameshwari Devi and ors vs. Nirmala Devi and ors, reported in (2011)8 SCC 249; Kishore Samrite vs. State of UP and ors, (2013)2 SCC 398 wherein it is held that, "it is very well settled that a persons whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court and he is not entitled (17) appw.192.2015.Ord.
to be heard on merits and he can be thrown out at the stage of litigation".
16. In Tiscon Realty Private Limited vs. C.G. Edifice, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1154 it is held that the defendant should not be allowed leave to defend on the pretext of making false oath on the affidavit. It is further held that if a party comes to court with unclean hands or basis its case and/or defence on falsehood, as has been done in the present case, the party should be dealt with very strongly and substantial costs and also should be imposed on the party.
17. In the case of Union of India and ors vs. Haresh Virumal Milani, reported in 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 1705, it is observed that if the court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence, it means that the Court has to undergo a process of formation of opinion in respect of would be or proposed inquiry. Thus it is a process of not confirming of the offence or guilt, but just formation (18) appw.192.2015.Ord.
of opinion that the matter is worth, having some material which apparently constitutes an offence as specified under Section 195 of Code of Criminal Procedure, to send it to a magistrate of the First Class having jurisdiction. Thus it is a stage of a preliminary inquiry, wherein the Judge need not go in depth of the assessment. It is further held that hearing of the person against whom prosecution is likely to be instituted is not contemplated.
18. In The State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh supra, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering the issue whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by a Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that there is no question of opportunity of hearing in a scenario of this nature and we say nothing else but that a law as enunciated by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah's case supra is in line with what was observed in Pritish's case supra. The (19) appw.192.2015.Ord.
answer thus raised to the question raised can be granted.
19. In the case of Devinder Mohan Zakhmi vs. The Amritsar Improvement Trust, Amritsar reported in 2002 SCC OnLine 439 also the aspect was considered and it is held that the accused has no right to participate at this stage.
20. Thus, it is settled law that at this stage the accused against whom the action is sought is not entitled to participate in the said proceeding.
21. Sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the CrPC creates a bar in taking cognizance on the complaint filed by the respondent. The controversy revolves around the interpretation that "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. After going through the provisions especially Section 195(1)(b)(ii), it is clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document or the allegation of a false evidence or a (20) appw.192.2015.Ord.
forgery if produced before the court, the bar of taking cognizance under section 195(1)(b)(ii) gets attracted and the criminal court is prohibited from taking cognizance of offence unless complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed under Section 340 of the Code or by on behalf of the court. The object is to preserve purity of the administration of justice and to allow the parties to adduce evidence.
22. Thus, the scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
23. While dealing with the provisions under Sections 340 and 341 of the CrPC, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah supra observed that in view of the language (21) appw.192.2015.Ord.
used in Section 340 Cr.PC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice". This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous (22) appw.192.2015.Ord.
evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged document remediless. Any interpretation which leads to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remediless, has to be discarded.
It is further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that there is another consideration which has to be kept in mind. Sub-section (1) of Section 340 Cr.PC contemplates holding of a preliminary enquiry. Normally, a direction for filing of a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding before the court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and the final judgment is rendered. Section 341 provides for an appeal against an order directing filing of the complaint. The hearing and ultimate decision of the appeal is bound to take time. Section 343(2) confers a discretion upon a (23) appw.192.2015.Ord.
court trying the complaint to adjourn the hearing of the case if it is brought to its notice that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of which the matter has arisen. In view of these provisions, the complaint case may not proceed at all for decades specially in matters arising out of civil suits where decisions are challenged in successive appellate foram which are time-consuming. It is also to be noticed that there is no provision of appeal against an order passed under Section 343(2), whereby hearing of the case is adjourned until the decision of the appeal. In view of these provisions, the complaint case may not proceed at all for decades specially in matters arising out of civil suits where decisions are challenged in successive appellate foram which are time-consuming. It is also to be noticed that there is no provision of appeal against an order passed under Section 343(2), whereby hearing of the case is adjourned until the decision of the appeal. These provisions show that, in reality, the procedure prescribed for filing a complaint by the court is such that it may not fructify in the actual trial of the (24) appw.192.2015.Ord.
offender for an unusually long period. Delay in prosecution of a guilty person comes to his advantage as witnesses become reluctant to give evidence and the evidence gets lost. This important consideration dissuades us from accepting the broad interpretation sought to be placed upon clause (b)
(ii).
The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the courts are normally reluctant to direct filing of a criminal complaint and such a course is rarely adopted. It will not be fair and proper to give an interpretation which leads to a situation where a person alleged to have committed an offence of the type enumerated in clause (b)(ii) is either not placed for trial on account of non-filing of a complaint or if a complaint is filed, the same does not come to its logical end.
24. In KTMS Mohd. and anr vs. Union of India, reported in (1992)3 SCC 178, it has been held that, "in this context, reference may be made to Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure under (25) appw.192.2015.Ord.
Chapter XXVI under the heading "Provisions as to certain offences affecting the administration of justice". This section confers an inherent power on a Court to make a complaint in respect of an offence committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, if that Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into an offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 and authorizes such Court to hold preliminary enquiry as it thinks necessary and then make a complaint thereof in writing after recording a finding to that effect as contemplated under sub-section (1) of Section 340. The words "in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court" show that the Court which can take action under this section is only the Court operating within the definition of Section 195(3) before which or in relation to whose proceeding the offence has been committed. There is a word of caution inbuilt in that provision itself that the action to be taken should be expedient in the interest of (26) appw.192.2015.Ord.
justice. Therefore, it is incumbent that the power given by this Section 340 of the Code should be used with utmost care and after due consideration"
25. In the case of K.Karunakaran vs. T.V.Eachara Warrier, reported in 1978 AIR 290 also it is held that, "at an enquiry held by the court under Section 340(1) Cr.P.C., irrespective of the result of the main case, the only question is whether a prima facie case is made out which, if unrebutted, may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offence and whether it is also expedient in the interest of justice to take such action".
26. In the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pankaj Chaudhary and others, reported in (2019) 11 SCC 575, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that there are two preconditions for initiating the proceeding under Section 340 of the CrPC; (1). materials presented before the court must establish a prima facie case for a complaint related to an offense under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.PC, and (2). It must be deemed expedient in the interests of justice (27) appw.192.2015.Ord.
to conduct an inquiry into the alleged offense. It has been observed that the Court has to be satisfied as to the prima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged also, still the Court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) Cr.P.C., having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. Thus, the Court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case. In the process of formation of (28) appw.192.2015.Ord.
opinion by the Court that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into, the requirement should only be to have a prima facie satisfaction of the offence which appears to have been committed. It is open to the Court to hold a preliminary inquiry though it is not mandatory.
27. Thus, it is consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the prosecution for perjury be sanctioned by the courts only in those cases where perjury appears to be deliberate and prosecution ought to be ordered where it would be expedient in the interest of justice to punish delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently without due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful (29) appw.192.2015.Ord.
material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge. The approach should not be mechanical and superficial. It is sufficient to justify conclusion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint.
28. It is expedient in the interest of justice that "the enquiry shall be made". These words are key note to Section 340. Under Section 340 of the Code, if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not on mere allegations, the course of initiating an enquiry under Section 340 is adopted only if the interests of justice so requires.
29. In law, "expedient" generally deals suitable or appropriate for achieving a particular purpose, (30) appw.192.2015.Ord.
even if not always morally or ethically ideal. It can also refer to something i.e. advantageous or helpful in a specific situation, particularly when dealing with an exigency. Essentially, it is about what is practical and beneficial in the moment rather than necessarily what is right or fair.
30. Advanced Law Lexicon defines "expedient" as "act" and "suitable" to the end or "practical" and "efficient," "Polite", "profitable," "advisable" "fit,"
"proper" and "suitable" to the circumstances of the case. In another case, it means a device "characterized" by merely rather than principle, conducting to special advantage rather than to what universally right.
31. The law lexicon defines the term "expedient" as "necessary" means what is indispensable, needful, essential. The term has a precise meaning and connotation and there is nothing vague or nebulous about it. The term "expedient" has no doubt a wide ambit and gives large scope to the exercise of power. But this expression has also a recognized connotation (31) appw.192.2015.Ord.
in the eye of law. There is no magic in recording the words that "Court find it expedient in the interest of justice that inquiry should be made" but from order of Court, it should appear that Court has formed such opinion.
32. In the case of in Shri Narendra Kumar Srivastava vs. State of Bihar and ors, reported in 2019 AIR (SC) 2675, while dealing with this aspect, it is held that requirement of formation of opinion of Court that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made, is with an objective that prosecution should be ordered if it is in the larger interest of administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. The Hon'ble Apex Court referred its earlier judgment in Santokh Singh vs. Izhar Hussain and anr, reported in (1973) 2 SCC 406, and observed that too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that Court should direct prosecution.
(32) appw.192.2015.Ord.
33. Thus, the settled law on this aspect shows that mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution for an offence under section 195 of the IPC or 340 of the Cr.PC but it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of judicial proceeding or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of losing the same at any stage of judicial proceedings. Even after the above position has emerged, still the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry under Section 340(1) of the Cr.PC into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case. In the process of formation of opinion by the court that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into, the requirement should only be to have a prima facie satisfaction of the offence which (33) appw.192.2015.Ord.
appears to have been committed. It is open to the court to hold a preliminary inquiry though it is not mandatory. In case, the court is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion, that it appears to the court that an offence as referred to under Section 340 CrPC has been committed, the court may dispense with the preliminary inquiry. Even after forming an opinion as to the offence which appears to have been committed, it is not mandatory that a complaint should be filed as a matter of course.
34. The question is whether it was expedient in the interest justice that an enquiry should be directed to be made as provided under Section 340 of the CrPC. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention that Section provides procedure in respect of offences enumerated under Section 195 (1) (d)(i) of the Code occur under Chapter XVI and XXVI. Sections 340 and 195 are closely connected and have to be read together. Section 195 starts with the words 'no court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under Sections 172 to 188 of the IPC except with the document in writing of the public servant concerned".
(34) appw.192.2015.Ord.
Whereas, Section 195(1)(d) forbids cognizance by any court and the offence against public servant except on complaint in writing of that court. Section 340 enacted and gives procedure for the same and provides as to the how the complaint is to be filed. This Section deals with cases mentioning Section 195(1)(d) and it has no concern with the offences under Section 195(1)(a). Thus, Section 340 and 195 (1)(d) are supplemented to each other. Section 195(1)(a) as observed earlier is not concerned with the courts. It deals with contempt of lawful authority of public servants and hence is not within the purview of Section 340 of the Code. In view of the procedure under Section 340, the court may take action suo-motu or otherwise on an application made by person if it is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so. In that case, the court may complaint in writing or otherwise but the powers of the court under Section 340 is confined with the provisions whether the court is of the opinion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to do so.
(35) appw.192.2015.Ord.
35. It is worth mentioning that the power under Section 340 of the Code is not absolute one. The enquiry can be made or the complaint can be directed to be filed only when the court comes to conclusion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to do so. There may be case where false complaint might have been filed for offence under Section 195 (1)(d) might appear to have been committed, but unless it is expedient in the interest of justice, the opinion of the court that enquiry should be made or complaint should be directed to be filed, the same cannot be done.
36. Applying these rules of interpretation to provisions of Section 340 of the CrPC, it is evident that the intention of the legislature behind such a language that the court's discretion is circumscribed by words used. The Court has to consider and weigh the balance of situation to ascertain as to whether in a given case is it 'expedient' in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. As an inescapable corollary, in case it is not 'expedient', under the circumstances, enquiry must not be made. Deliberate (36) appw.192.2015.Ord.
use of word "expedient" by the legislature obviously connotes its meaning as to suitable or advisable. The power of the Court in directing an enquiry to be made or a complaint to be filed in view of the provisions of Section 340 as limited with a condition that it should appear to the Court to be expedient in the interest of justice to do so. To put it differently, it is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood when the Court can direct an enquiry to be made or complaint to be filed but this discretion has to be exercised judicially in the light of all the relevant circumstances. Section 340 of the code is not with a view to satisfy personal feelings of vindictiveness. The Court has to be satisfied about the deliberate falsehood as a matter of substance and there must be a reasonable foundation for the charge and it must be expedient in the interest of justice. The court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all relevant circumstances when it determines question of expediency.
37. In Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah case, the constitution bench of the Hon'ble (37) appw.192.2015.Ord.
Apex Court has gone into scope of Section 340 and in paragraph No.23 relevant considerations are noted and observed as follows:
"In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice." This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(i)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint."
38. Thus, it has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the prosecution for perjury (38) appw.192.2015.Ord.
be sanctioned by the court only in those cases where perjury appears to be dealt with and that prosecution ought to be ordered where it would be expedient in the interest of justice to punish delinquent and there is no inaccuracy in the statement. Thus, before taking action under Section 340 of the Cr.PC, the court is required to see as to whether material produced before the court makes out prima facie case for complaint for the purpose of enquiry into the offence referred in clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 195 of the CrPC and it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into the alleged offence.
39. Thus, before directing the prosecution for perjury for giving false evidence before the court, the court has to come to conclusion the perjury appears to be deliberate.
40. In Criminal Appeal No.1931/2011 (Ashok Gulabrao Bondre vs. Vilas Madhukarrao Deshmukh) decided on 12.4.2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the provisions under (39) appw.192.2015.Ord.
Section 195 of the CrPC and under section 340(1) of the CrPC by referring its earlier judgment in the case of Sachida Nand Singh and anr vs. State of Bihar and anr, reported in (1998)2 SCC 493, observed scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice has been committed in respect of a document produced in court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis. It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the court records.
41. Now, the only question requires for consideration is that whether preliminary enquiry before directing the prosecution for the alleged statements of the accused is required.
(40) appw.192.2015.Ord.
42. At this stage, in view the settled law, it is not expedient in the interest of justice to direct the prosecution of the accused for making such statements in the petition.
43. As observed earlier, basic requirement to apply Section 340 is formation of an opinion by court that it is expedient in the interest of justice that the enquiry should be made for the offence which appears to have been committed. It is also well settled that merely because some statements are made or a person has made a contradictory statement in judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify prosecution of the accused. It is to be ascertained whether the accused intentionally made such statement in judicial proceeding. Even after the above position, the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate the enquiry into offence of false statements and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) of the Cr.PC having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable (41) appw.192.2015.Ord.
consequences of such prosecution. The court must be satisfied that such an enquiry is required in the interest of justice.
44. As observed by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the prosecution for perjury be sanctioned by the courts only in those cases where perjury appears to be dealt and that prosecution ought to be ordered where it would be expedient in the interest of justice to punish delinquent and there no inaccuracy in the statement. Thus, before taking action under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. the court is required to see as to whether material produced before the court makes out prima facie case for complaint for the purpose of enquiry into the offence referred in clause (b) of sub section (1) of Section 195 of the CrPC and it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into the alleged offence. It is worth mentioning that the power under Section 340 of the Code is not absolute one. The enquiry can be made or the complaint can be directed to be filed only when the court comes to conclusion that it was expedient in the interest of justice to do so. There may be case (42) appw.192.2015.Ord.
where false complaint might have been filed for offence under Section 195 (1)(d) might appear to have been committed, but unless it is expedient in the interest of justice, the opinion of the court that enquiry should be made or complaint should be directed to be filed, the same cannot be done. The power of the Court in directing an enquiry to be made or a complaint to be filed in view of the provisions of Section 340 as limited with a condition that it should appear to the Court to be expedient in the interest of justice to do so. To put it differently, it is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood when the Court can direct an enquiry to be made or complaint to be filed but this discretion has to be exercised judicially in the light of all the relevant circumstances. Admittedly, the Section 340 of the code is not with a view to satisfy personal feelings of vindictiveness. The Court has to be satisfied about the deliberate falsehood as a matter of substance and there must be a reasonable foundation for the charge and it must be expedient in the interest of justice.
(43) appw.192.2015.Ord.
45. Thus, at this stage, the material placed on record is not sufficient to come to conclusion and to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that enquiry should be made into offence which appears to have been committed.
46. The controversy revolves around the interpretation that "when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. After going through the provisions especially Section 195(1)(b)(ii), it is clear that for taking cognizance of an offence, the document or the allegation of a false evidence or a forgery if produced before the court, the bar of taking cognizance under section 195(1)(b)(ii) gets attracted and the criminal court is prohibited from taking cognizance of offence unless complaint in writing is filed as per the procedure prescribed under Section 340 of the Code or by on behalf of the court. The object is to preserve purity of the administration of justice and to allow the parties to adduce evidence. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice (44) appw.192.2015.Ord.
requires and not in every case. This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice. Thus, the broader view of clause (b)(ii), as canvassed in various judgments shows that the discretion is to be used when it is a need for the purpose of securing the justice or in other words where it is expedient in the interest of justice. The term "expedient" as mentioned above with the help of dictionary meaning (45) appw.192.2015.Ord.
if applied to the present case, in my view, at this stage, it is not expedient in the interest of justice to hold an enquiry or to entertain the question.
47. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the view that no case is made out by the applicant who is respondent No.2, at this stage showing it is expedient in the interest of justice to hold an enquiry and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected and hence it is rejected.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) Sarkate Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 29/04/2026 20:15:27