Section 340 CrPC | Making False Averments In Pleadings Can Attract Perjury Proceedings Even If Opponent Suffers No Prejudice: Delhi High Court

"The threshold for directing a complaint under Section 340 of CrPC is therefore satisfied. There is a reasonable foundation in the contemporaneous record for the allegations levelled under Section 191 read with 193 of IPC and Section 209 of IPC against the concerned officers" Delhi High Court, in a significant ruling dated October 6, 2026, held that initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is not contingent upon the absence of prejudice to the opponent or the Court not being misled.

A bench of Justice Madhu Jain observed that the "expediency" of such proceedings must be assessed with reference to the impact of the alleged offence upon the administration of justice and the veracity of the claims made before the Court, rather than the magnitude of injury suffered by the individual litigant.

Court Rejects Plea Of 'Imprecise Choice Of Words'

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal challenging an order that declined to initiate proceedings against CBI officers for filing a factually incorrect reply. The controversy centered on a statement in a 2016 reply where the CBI claimed that "correspondence with the administrative Ministry" regarding an appeal was "underway," despite internal records indicating that no such correspondence existed. The Court noted that the Special Judge had erred in treating this as an "imprecise choice of words" or an inadvertent error.

Handwritten Alterations Reveal Conscious Falsity

The High Court observed that the contemporaneous record—specifically the file-notings and successive drafts—demonstrated a deliberate modification of the CBI's reply. The Court found that an initial draft correctly acknowledged the Ministry's decision not to appeal, but this was later struck out and replaced by a handwritten assertion claiming ongoing correspondence. The Court reasoned that this alteration changed the very factual position sought to be presented to the Court, and this was done with the knowledge and participation of multiple officers.

CBI Officers Directly Linked To False Statement

The bench noted that while one officer signed the reply, the administrative process revealed the involvement of several officials in preparing, vetting, and approving the false statement. The Court held that the "difference in the nature and degree of their respective participation does not warrant the exclusion of any officer at the stage of directing a complaint." Consequently, the Court found a reasonable foundation to proceed against multiple officers for offences under Sections 191, 193, and 209 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

No Need For Preliminary Inquiry When Record Is Clear

The Court emphasized that a further preliminary inquiry was unnecessary as the "successive drafts, the relevant file-notings and the signed reply" had already been thoroughly examined. It clarified that when the record itself provides a "reasonable foundation for the allegations," an inquiry into these offences becomes expedient in the interests of justice to maintain the fairness of the adjudicatory process. The Court underscored that such accountability serves a broader purpose than addressing the appellant's individual grievance.

"A deliberate substitution of that account with a materially false claim directly affects the fairness of the adjudicatory process. The justification for further proceedings accordingly extends beyond the appellant’s individual grievance"

Prior Rulings On Perjury Cited

In arriving at this conclusion, the Court drew upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, reiterating that the impact on the administration of justice is the paramount consideration. It also referenced the Delhi High Court’s decision in Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State, confirming that a knowingly false averment in a verified pleading can attract Section 191 IPC upon its filing, even without the maker entering the witness box.

Appeal Allowed With Directions To Magistrate

Concluding the proceedings, the Court set aside the impugned order of the Special Judge and directed the initiation of a complaint in writing against the involved CBI officers, including the investigating officer and senior officials who approved the reply. The complaint is to be transmitted to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate within four weeks. The Court also ordered that the Magistrate should revive the existing, adjourned complaint and proceed further in accordance with law, ensuring no parallel proceedings are instituted.

Date of Decision: 06 October 2026