Wrong Statement" Not Always A "False Statement": Supreme Court Quashes Perjury Prosecution Over Typographical Errors In Pleadings

"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." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 21, 2026, held that making an inadvertent "wrong statement" in court pleadings due to typographical errors does not justify initiating criminal prosecution for perjury under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar observed that there is a material difference between a mere wrong statement and a false statement, noting that the latter requires a deliberate intention to deceive the court to gain an undue advantage.

The dispute stemmed from a civil suit where the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant had breached a temporary injunction order. The defendant challenged the trial court's order in an appeal, where certain typographical errors crept into the memorandum of appeal and the stay application prepared by his counsel. Based on these drafting errors, the appellate court directed the lodging of a criminal complaint against the defendant and his counsel under Sections 193, 199, and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, a direction which was subsequently upheld by the Bombay High Court.

The primary question before the court was whether a mere prima facie satisfaction that "wrong statements" were made in pleadings warrants the exercise of powers under Section 340 of the CrPC. The court was also called upon to determine whether an appellate court could improve upon a lower court's order by recording new findings of deliberate falsehood and expediency that were entirely absent in the original directive.

Difference Between 'Wrong' And 'False' Statements

The bench explained that Section 193 of the IPC punishes the giving of false evidence, while Section 199 penalises the making of a false statement in a declaration. The court emphasised that the threshold for initiating action under these provisions is the making of a "false statement" and not merely a "wrong statement." It was observed that inadvertent errors or mistakes could be termed as wrong statements, but they do not automatically attract criminal liability.

Deliberate Intention To Deceive Is Essential

Elaborating on the legal standard, the court stated that a false statement implies something more than a mere untruth. It must carry an intent to deceive coupled with actual or constructive knowledge. The bench noted that the basic premise on which the trial court directed the complaint to be filed was erroneous because it only recorded a finding that "wrong statements" were made, which does not satisfy the necessary legal threshold for perjury.

> "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."

Mandatory Finding Of Expediency

The Supreme Court strongly reiterated that under Section 340(1) of the CrPC, a court must specifically form an opinion that it is "expedient in the interests of justice" to hold an inquiry into the alleged offence. The bench observed that the lower court completely failed to record any such satisfaction before directing the lodging of the complaint. Relying on the precedent in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, the court noted that ordering an inquiry without forming this requisite opinion renders the order bad in law.

High Court Cannot Improve Original Order In Appeal

Taking exception to the Bombay High Court's approach, the bench observed that the High Court had improperly proceeded to improve the lower court's order. While the court of first instance only found a prima facie case of "wrong statements," the High Court recorded a new finding that a "false affidavit" had been filed. The Supreme Court ruled that such an improvement by the appellate court is not permissible in law, especially when the original order had not even been challenged by the plaintiffs.

Typographical Errors Promptly Addressed

The court also took into account that the defendant's counsel had filed an application to correct the typographical errors in the memorandum of appeal much before the plaintiffs invoked Section 340 of the CrPC. The counsel had furnished a valid explanation that a part-time stenographer had mistakenly typed "dismissed" instead of "disposed of" and had inadvertently omitted the word "not." The court found that these were genuine mistakes for which a sincere apology had already been tendered.

Prosecution Not For Serving Private Revenge

Citing the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah and the recent ruling in James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand, the court reminded that perjury prosecutions should be initiated only in exceptional circumstances. The bench reiterated that courts must exercise judicial discretion and not order prosecution merely to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness. The court cautioned that the aid of Section 340 CrPC is sometimes misused merely to delay the adjudication of substantive proceedings.

Setting aside the impugned judgments of both the High Court and the Additional District Judge, the Supreme Court held that the errors in the pleadings were not of such a grave nature that they amounted to "false statements." The criminal appeal was allowed, and the application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 340 of the CrPC was consequently dismissed.

Date of Decision: July 21, 2026