High Court Cannot Improve Lower Court's Defective Section 340 CrPC Order In Appeal Filed By Aggrieved Party: Supreme Court

"The High Court has, thus, proceeded to improve the impugned order in an appeal preferred by the appellants, who were in fact aggrieved by the same. Such course is not permissible in law." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 21, 2026, held that an appellate court hearing an appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot cure or improve upon the fundamental defects of a lower court's order directing prosecution under Section 340 CrPC.

A bench of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar observed that when the court of first instance fails to record the mandatory findings of deliberate falsehood and expediency, the appellate court cannot introduce these findings for the first time to the detriment of the appellant.

The dispute originated from a civil suit where the trial court issued a temporary injunction against the defendants, which they allegedly breached. In an appeal challenging the breach order, the defendant and his counsel inadvertently used the word "dismissed" instead of "disposed of" in their pleadings. Acting on an application by the plaintiffs, the lower appellate court directed the filing of a criminal complaint against the defendant and his counsel under Section 340 CrPC for making "wrong statements." The appellants challenged this direction before the High Court under Section 341 CrPC, which dismissed their appeal while improperly adding new findings of deliberate falsehood, prompting the present appeal to the Supreme Court.

The primary question before the Court was whether a High Court, exercising appellate jurisdiction under Section 341 CrPC, can record mandatory statutory findings that were entirely absent in the original Section 340 CrPC order. The Court was also called upon to determine whether mere typographical errors constituting "wrong statements" warrant the initiation of perjury proceedings under Sections 193, 199, and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Appellate Court Exceeded Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court strongly criticized the High Court's approach in dealing with the Section 341 CrPC appeal. The bench noted that the court of first instance had merely recorded a prima facie satisfaction that "wrong statements" were made, without finding that a "false affidavit" was filed or that prosecution was expedient in the interest of justice. The High Court, however, went on to record these crucial findings itself. The bench observed that the High Court could not have recorded such findings, especially when the original plaintiffs had not even challenged the lower court's order.

Appellant Cannot Be Worse Off For Appealing

Delving into the limits of appellate power in such proceedings, the Court emphasised that an aggrieved party invoking a statutory appellate remedy cannot be penalized for doing so. By supplying the missing mandatory findings of "falsehood" and "expediency" to sustain the defective original order, the High Court effectively penalized the appellants. The Court categorically stated that "the appellants could not have been placed in a worse position by preferring an appeal."

Difference Between 'Wrong' And 'False' Statements

The Court highlighted the material difference between a mere "wrong statement" and a "false statement" in the context of Sections 193, 199, and 200 of the IPC. A wrong statement of fact, the bench explained, does not automatically possess the character of a false statement. The threshold for initiating criminal action requires a deliberate intention. The bench observed that 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."

Mandatory Finding Of Expediency

The judgment reiterated that Section 340 CrPC contains mandatory pre-conditions before a court can direct the filing of a criminal complaint. The lower court completely failed to record its satisfaction that initiating the inquiry was "expedient in the interest of justice." Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah and the ruling in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, the Supreme Court held that ordering an inquiry without forming this statutory opinion renders the order bad in law.

Inadvertent Errors Do Not Justify Prosecution

Examining the facts on record, the Court noted that the counsel had already moved an application much prior to the Section 340 CrPC proceedings, explaining that the errors were typographical mistakes by a part-time steno-typist. The bench accepted this explanation, observing that "inadvertent errors or mistakes in a statement could be termed as a 'wrong statement'." The Court held that such errors lacked the intent to deceive coupled with knowledge, actual or constructive, which is essential for perjury.

Section 340 Should Not Be Used For Delay

Before parting, the Court cautioned against the misuse of Section 340 CrPC proceedings by litigants. Relying on recent precedent in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, the bench noted that perjury proceedings should only be initiated in exceptional circumstances. The Court observed that "at times, the aid of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is sought to be taken merely to delay the adjudication of the substantive proceedings, as also in the present case."

The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, quashing both the lower court's order directing the lodging of a complaint and the High Court's judgment sustaining it. The application preferred by the plaintiffs under Section 340 CrPC was consequently dismissed, bringing relief to the defendant and his legal counsel.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2026