‘Wrong Statement’ Is Not the Same as a ‘False Statement’: Supreme Court Explains Threshold for Section 340 CrPC Proceedings
Case Name: Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Another v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Another
Date of Judgment: 21 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 724
Bench: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Held: The Supreme Court held that a mere finding that a party or its counsel made a “wrong statement” in pleadings is insufficient to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC for offences under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC. A wrong statement arising from inadvertence or error is materially different from a “false statement”, which involves knowledge and an intention to deceive or obtain an undue advantage. Before directing prosecution, the Court must also independently form an opinion that such action is expedient in the interests of justice; prosecution should ordinarily be confined to exceptional cases involving deliberate falsehood on a material issue supported by a reasonable foundation and distinct evidence.
Summary: The dispute arose from civil proceedings concerning property and an alleged breach of a temporary injunction. The plaintiffs accused the defendant and his advocate of making incorrect statements in a miscellaneous appeal and stay application, including using the word “dismissed” instead of “disposed of” and omitting the word “no” from a sentence. On an application under Section 340 CrPC, the Additional District Judge found that “wrong statements” had prima facie been made and directed the filing of a complaint against both the litigant and his counsel under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC. The Bombay High Court declined to interfere.
The Supreme Court found a fundamental defect in this approach. The offences invoked require a prima facie case of false evidence or a false statement, whereas the lower court had recorded only that “wrong statements” were made. The Court clarified that an incorrect statement may result from an innocent or inadvertent mistake, while a false statement carries an element of deliberate deception. The necessary statutory threshold for initiating prosecution was therefore not satisfied.
Significantly, the appellants had moved an application to correct the typing mistakes on 20 September 2004, well before the Section 340 application was filed on 27 April 2005, explaining how the errors had occurred and tendering an apology. The Supreme Court held that the record supported the explanation that the mistakes were typographical rather than deliberate falsehoods. It also faulted the High Court for attempting to cure deficiencies in the original order by itself finding that a false affidavit had been filed and that prosecution was expedient, thereby placing the appellants in a worse position merely because they had appealed.
The Court further cautioned that Section 340 proceedings should not be used to derail or delay substantive litigation and reiterated that, ordinarily, a complaint for perjury should be considered after conclusion of the main proceedings rather than during their pendency.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashed the order directing prosecution, as well as the judgment affirming it, and dismissed the plaintiffs’ application under Section 340 CrPC. The Court concluded that no case whatsoever had been made out for initiating criminal proceedings against either the defendant or his advocate.