Wrong Word in Pleading Can’t Automatically Become Perjury: Supreme Court Protects Lawyer and Client From Criminal Prosecution
Missing Word ‘No’ in Stay Application Led to Criminal Complaint Against Lawyer and Client; Supreme Court Treats It as Typographical Error
Facts
The respondents had filed a civil suit against the predecessors-in-title of Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram, seeking an injunction restraining interference with their property.
On 3 April 2001, the Trial Court granted a temporary injunction. It restrained the defendants from obstructing the plaintiffs’ possession and permitted the plaintiffs to access the water meter for repairs or replacement.
The original defendants challenged that injunction order in appeal.
During the pendency of the proceedings, Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram purchased the disputed property and was impleaded as a defendant on 16 January 2003.
The plaintiffs subsequently filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, alleging that the injunction order had been violated.
On 13 October 2003, the Trial Court directed the defendant to restore the earlier position at the property and issued a notice asking why he should not be held guilty of breaching the injunction.
The defendant challenged that order by filing a miscellaneous civil appeal. The appeal and stay application were drafted by his advocate, who was the second appellant before the Supreme Court.
On 17 January 2004, the Appellate Court stayed the Trial Court’s order.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant and his advocate had made incorrect statements in the memorandum of appeal and the stay application to obtain the interim order.
The disputed errors were:
- Describing earlier High Court proceedings as having been “dismissed” when they had actually been “disposed of”; and
- Omitting the word “no” from a sentence concerning whether a permanent structure could be erected.
The plaintiffs initially filed a criminal contempt petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court against:
- The defendant;
- His advocate; and
- The Judge who had granted the stay.
On 12 October 2004, the High Court declined to proceed with the contempt petition but granted liberty to the plaintiffs to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
The plaintiffs thereafter filed a Section 340 application, alleging that the defendant and his lawyer had deliberately made false statements in the appeal and stay application.
On 19 January 2006, the Seventh Additional District Judge, Nagpur, held that a prima facie case of making “wrong statements” was established. It directed the filing of a criminal complaint against both appellants for offences under:
- Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 – punishment for false evidence;
- Section 199 – false statement in a declaration legally receivable as evidence; and
- Section 200 – using such a declaration as true despite knowing it to be false.
The appellants challenged that order under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On 14 August 2012, the Bombay High Court dismissed their appeal. It went further than the original court by recording that a false affidavit had been filed and that prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice.
The litigant and his advocate challenged these orders before the Supreme Court.
Significantly, on 20 September 2004—several months before the Section 340 application was filed—the advocate had already applied for correction of the typographical errors.
In that application, the advocate explained that:
- A part-time stenographer had typed the pleadings;
- “Dismissed” was mistakenly typed in place of “disposed of”;
- The word “no” was accidentally omitted;
- The certified copies containing the correct orders were already on record; and
- The advocate accepted responsibility for not proofreading the documents and tendered an apology.
Issues
- Whether a prima facie finding that “wrong statements” were made was sufficient to initiate criminal proceedings for giving false evidence.
- Whether Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code require deliberate falsehood, knowledge and an intention to deceive.
- Whether Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be invoked without determining that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice.
- Whether typographical errors in pleadings prepared by an advocate can justify criminal prosecution of the advocate and the litigant.
- Whether the High Court could supply findings absent from the original order and place the appellants in a worse position in their own appeal.
- Whether Section 340 proceedings should ordinarily be initiated while the principal civil proceedings are still pending.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants argued that there was no deliberate or intentional falsehood in the appeal or stay application.
The errors were purely typographical:
- “Dismissed” had been typed instead of “disposed of”; and
- The negative word “no” had accidentally been omitted.
The correct certified orders were already part of the record. There was therefore no attempt to conceal the true position or deceive the Appellate Court.
The advocate had voluntarily filed a correction application on 20 September 2004, much before the plaintiffs initiated the Section 340 proceedings on 27 April 2005.
The correction application explained how the mistakes occurred, accepted responsibility for the lack of proofreading and tendered an apology.
The appellants submitted that a perjury complaint is a serious and drastic measure. It cannot be ordered unless:
- A deliberate false statement is prima facie established;
- The person knew or believed it to be false;
- The falsehood concerned a material issue; and
- Prosecution was necessary in the interests of justice.
The original court had merely found that “wrong statements” were made. It neither found deliberate falsehood nor considered whether prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice.
Respondents’ Arguments
Despite being served in the Supreme Court proceedings, the respondents did not appear to oppose the appeal.
Before the lower courts, they had alleged that the incorrect statements were deliberately included in the memorandum of appeal and stay application to obtain an interim stay against the Trial Court’s order.
They claimed that the words materially misrepresented the earlier judicial orders and justified prosecution for false evidence.
Analysis of the Law
Requirements of Section 340
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not require a court to initiate prosecution in every case involving an incorrect statement.
Before directing a complaint, the court must satisfy two separate requirements:
- The material must disclose a prima facie case concerning an offence covered by Section 195(1)(b); and
- The court must form an opinion that prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice.
The second requirement is not an empty formality. The court must evaluate the impact of the alleged falsehood on the administration of justice.
A private party’s desire to punish an opponent is not sufficient.
Wrong Statement Versus False Statement
The Supreme Court drew a material distinction between a “wrong statement” and a “false statement.”
A wrong statement may arise from:
- Typographical error;
- Inadvertence;
- Misunderstanding;
- Carelessness; or
- An innocent mistake.
A false statement involves something more. It ordinarily carries:
- Knowledge of falsity;
- Deliberate intention;
- An attempt to deceive; or
- An intention to obtain an improper advantage.
Sections 193, 199 and 200 punish intentional falsehood. They do not criminalise every inaccurate or wrongly worded pleading.
The original court found only that “wrong statements” had been made. It did not record that the statements were deliberately false.
That finding failed to satisfy the basic statutory threshold.
Expediency in the Interests of Justice
The original court did not determine whether prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice.
Section 340 requires the court to consider whether the alleged falsehood had such an impact upon the administration of justice that criminal prosecution was necessary.
A complaint cannot be mechanically ordered merely after noticing an incorrect statement.
High Court Could Not Improve the Original Order
The High Court attempted to cure the deficiencies by recording that:
- A false affidavit had been filed; and
- Prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice.
However, neither finding had been recorded by the original court.
The plaintiffs had not challenged the original order for failing to record these findings. The appeal was filed only by the persons against whom prosecution had been directed.
The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not improve the original order and place the appellants in a worse position merely because they had exercised their right of appeal.
Effect of the Correction Application
The correction application had been filed before the plaintiffs initiated Section 340 proceedings.
It identified the precise errors, explained their origin and requested their correction. The certified copies containing the correct position were already before the court.
These circumstances strongly supported the appellants’ case that the mistakes were inadvertent and typographical rather than deliberate attempts to deceive.
The Court held that the errors were not sufficiently grave to amount to intentional false evidence.
Timing of Section 340 Proceedings
The Supreme Court reiterated that a Section 340 complaint should ordinarily not be initiated while the substantive proceedings remain pending.
The court should normally first complete the principal case and assess the actual effect of the alleged falsehood on the administration of justice.
Premature Section 340 applications can divert attention from the main dispute and may be misused to delay adjudication.
Precedent Analysis
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah
The Constitution Bench held that a court is not bound to file a complaint whenever an offence under Section 195(1)(b) is alleged.
Prosecution should be ordered only when it is expedient in the interests of justice. The court must examine the impact of the alleged offence upon the administration of justice rather than merely the personal injury claimed by a private party.
The judgment also indicated that such complaints should ordinarily be considered after the principal proceedings conclude.
Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain
The Supreme Court held that every incorrect or false statement does not require prosecution.
A complaint should ordinarily be directed only in a glaring case of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely. The power exists to protect the administration of justice, not to satisfy personal revenge or vindictiveness.
James Kunjwal v. State of Uttarakhand
The Supreme Court summarised the requirements for initiating Section 340 proceedings:
- There must be sufficient and reasonable grounds;
- Prosecution must be expedient in the interests of justice;
- The statement must involve deliberate falsehood on a substantial matter;
- There must be distinct evidence rather than mere suspicion; and
- Proceedings should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as obtaining a beneficial order through deliberate perjury.
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court held that the orders directing criminal prosecution were legally unsustainable.
The following factors were decisive:
- The original court found only that “wrong statements” had been made.
- It did not record a prima facie finding of deliberate falsehood.
- It did not find that the appellants knew the statements were false.
- It did not identify any intention to deceive the court or obtain an improper advantage.
- It did not determine that prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice.
- The mistakes involved the substitution of “dismissed” for “disposed of” and omission of the word “no.”
- The correct certified orders were already on record.
- The advocate had filed a correction application before the Section 340 proceedings began.
- The correction application explained the stenographic mistakes and acknowledged the lack of proofreading.
- The High Court could not supply the missing findings and worsen the appellants’ position in their own appeal.
- The Section 340 application had diverted attention from the pending substantive civil proceedings.
The Court emphasised that the gravity of an intentional false statement is much greater than an inaccurate statement caused by inadvertence.
The present errors did not cross the statutory threshold for prosecution under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal.
It quashed and set aside:
- The order dated 19 January 2006 passed by the Seventh Additional District Judge, Nagpur, directing the filing of a criminal complaint; and
- The Bombay High Court judgment dated 14 August 2012 affirming that order.
The application filed by the plaintiffs under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was dismissed.
Consequently, no criminal proceedings for false evidence could continue against either the litigant or his advocate.
Case Details
Case: Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram and Another v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar and Another, 2026 Indian Supreme Court 724
Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Number 1365 of 2015
Judges: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Date: 21 July 2026
Result: Appeal allowed; orders directing perjury prosecution against the litigant and his advocate quashed, and the Section 340 application dismissed.
