Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Anr. v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar & Anr., 2026

• The dispute originated from a civil suit concerning the enjoyment of property. The plaintiffs had obtained a temporary injunction from the trial court restraining obstruction to their occupation and permitting access to the water meter for replacement and repairs. 

• After the first appellant purchased the property and was impleaded in the suit, the plaintiffs alleged that the injunction had been breached. The trial court consequently proceeded under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC and directed restoration of the earlier position while issuing a show-cause notice.

• The appellant challenged that order in a miscellaneous appeal and filed a stay application. The plaintiffs alleged that the appeal and stay application contained incorrect/false statements and consequently initiated proceedings seeking action under Section 340 CrPC against the appellant and his counsel. 

• The appellate court found a prima facie case of “wrong statements” and directed filing of a complaint under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC. The High Court subsequently declined to interfere.

• Before the Supreme Court, the appellants argued that the statements were the result of typographical errors, rather than deliberate falsehoods. They had, in fact, applied for correction of the errors before the Section 340 application was filed.

1. Whether merely making “wrong statements” in pleadings is sufficient to invoke Section 340 CrPC and initiate prosecution under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC?
2. Whether the court must find a prima facie case of a deliberate “false statement” or false evidence before directing prosecution?
3. Whether the court exercising power under Section 340 CrPC must separately form an opinion that an inquiry is “expedient in the interests of justice”?
4. Whether typographical or inadvertent errors in pleadings, particularly where an explanation and correction are offered, can justify initiation of perjury proceedings?
5. Whether the High Court could supplement or improve upon the reasoning of the original court by recording findings that were absent from the original Section 340 order?

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside both:

• the order dated 19 January 2006 of the 7th Additional District Judge, Nagpur; and

• the High Court judgment dated 14 August 2012.

• The Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application under Section 340 CrPC and consequently quashed the direction to initiate criminal proceedings against the appellants. 

• The Court emphasized that there is a material distinction between a “wrong statement” and a “false statement.” A wrong statement may result from an inadvertent or typographical mistake, whereas a false statement involves a greater degree of culpability, including an intention to deceive.

• The Supreme Court further held that Section 340 CrPC requires the court to consider not merely whether there is a prima facie basis for an offence, but also whether it is “expedient in the interests of justice” to initiate an inquiry/prosecution.

• The judgment reinforces an important safeguard against the mechanical use of Section 340 CrPC.

• The Court stressed that an erroneous statement is not automatically a deliberately false statement. For offences involving false evidence or false declarations, the nature and intention behind the statement matter. The Court observed that a false statement carries an element of intent to deceive, whereas an inadvertent error may simply be a mistake.

• A court cannot direct prosecution merely because it notices an inaccurate statement. It must consider whether there is a sufficient prima facie foundation for the alleged offence and whether prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice. 

• Relying upon Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, the Court reiterated that prosecution for perjury-related offences is not intended to become routine litigation between parties. The power is directed toward protecting the administration of justice.

  The record showed that the appellant had already applied for correction of the mistakes before the Section 340 application was filed. The Court therefore considered the explanation that the mistakes arose during typing to be significant. 

• The Supreme Court also criticized the High Court for recording a finding that the appellants had filed a false affidavit, when the original court had only found “wrong statements.” According to the Supreme Court, an appellant should not ordinarily be placed in a worse position merely because he exercised his right of appeal. 

• The decision underscores that Section 340 CrPC is an exceptional mechanism. Courts should distinguish between innocent/inadvertent inaccuracies and deliberate falsehood on a material matter before directing criminal prosecution. The Court also referred to James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand for the requirement of a reasonable foundation and deliberate falsehood in appropriate cases.