The Supreme Court on Tuesday (July 21) set aside the perjury proceedings against a litigant and his counsel for allegedly making 'typographical errors' in a memorandum of an appeal, noting that every instance of wrong statements cannot be treated as a 'false statement' unless a deliberate falsehood is shown.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the Bombay High Court's Nagpur bench order which had upheld the Additional Sessions Court decision to initiate the perjury proceedings against the Appellants without forming any opinion as mandated under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.

“…holding of an inquiry is in fact expedient in the interests of justice is also a must. Ordering an inquiry without formation of any opinion as required by Section 340 (1) of the Cr.P.C. would render the order bad in law being not in accordance with the mandate of Section 340 (1).”, the Court observed.

Further, the Court disagreed with the impugned approach of treating a 'typographical mistake' in the memo of an appeal to be false statements and ordering perjury proceedings without forming an opinion of whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to hold such proceedings.

“…the mistakes were typographical in nature and an explanation was duly furnished for their occurrence. The gravity of a statement that is false is definitely greater than that of a statement that is wrong. Inadvertent errors or mistakes in a statement could be termed as a 'wrong statement'. However, a 'false statement' would imply something more than a mere untruth as it carries with it an intent to deceive coupled with knowledge, actual or constructive…It, therefore, cannot be said that the errors in the memorandum of appeal and the application for stay were of such a grave nature that it amounted to making 'false statements' requiring initiation of proceedings under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the Penal Code.”, the Court said.

The dispute arose out of a civil suit relating to immovable property in which the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants. During the pendency of the proceedings, the first appellant purchased the disputed property and was impleaded as a defendant.

Subsequently, in an appeal and accompanying stay application, certain statements were made describing an earlier writ petition as having been "dismissed" instead of "disposed of". Another pleading omitted the word "no" while referring to construction of a permanent structure.

The plaintiffs thereafter moved an application under Section 340 CrPC seeking prosecution of the defendant and his counsel for making false statements in judicial proceedings.

The appellate court directed filing of a criminal complaint under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC, and the High Court affirmed the order, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Allowing the appeal, the judgment authored by Justice Chandurkar observed that the threshold for initiating a proceeding for perjury, i.e., making a false statement, was not met, rendering the proceedings vitiated.

“A 'wrong statement' of fact may not always have the character of a 'false statement'. While making of a 'wrong statement' may not fall within the ambit of Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, a 'false statement' would qualify as relevant material for being considered as an offence under the said provisions. 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.”, the Court observed.

In light of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: PRABHAKAR YESHWANT MASRAM AND ANOTHER VERSUS SOU TULA NAMDEORAO JAIPURKAR AND ANOTHER

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 703

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s): Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Pratik Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Shashank Upadhyay, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

For Respondent(s): None