Manipal Business Solutions Private Limited vs Aurigain Consulants Private Limited And Ors
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 04 MAY, 2026
IN THE MATTER OF:
CRL.M.A. 14926/2023
IN
+ CS(OS) 190/2022
MANIPAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED
.....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Senior
Advocate with Mr. Atanu Mukherjee,
Ms. Sujal Gupta and Mr. Shailendra
Slaria, Advocates
versus
AURIGAIN CONSULANTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS
.....Defendants
Through: Ms. Shantha Devi Raman, Mr.
Arihant Jain and Ms. Tanisha Gopal,
Advs along with Mr. RK Singh,
Defendant No.3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
JUDGMENT
CRL.M.A. 14926/2023
1. The instant Application is filed under Section 340 read with Section
195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ( hereinafter referred to as
“ CrPC ”) against the Plaintiff Company and its authorized signatories.
2. The present Suit is one for permanent and mandatory injunction and
for damages. It has been filed with the following prayers:
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 1 of 25
“a. A decree for permanent and mandatory injunction
restraining the Defendants, its associates, business
partners, legal heirs or any person involved with
Defendant No. l from carrying on any business in
contravention of the terms of the non-disclosure
agreements;
b. A decree for damages in excess of Rs.10,00,00,000/-
(Rupees Ten Crore) or more may be passed in favour
of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant. The Plaintiff
reserves its right to pay additional court fee in case
damages are awarded in excess of Rupees Ten Crore;
c. An order for costs in the proceedings;
d. Any further order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case
may also be passed.”
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case, as mentioned in the
Plaint, are as follows:
a) The Plaintiff is a Private Limited Company incorporated under the
provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is stated that the Plaintiff is
engaged in the business of providing integrated outsourced
technology solutions and field services to Banks and other financial
institutions to facilitate the financial inclusion initiative in India. It is
stated that the Plaintiff has developed a unique in-house technology in
rural banking services by providing a fully functional and certified
end-to-end system for enabling authentication/e-KYC and payments
on UIDAI-Aadhaar Enabled Payments System (“ AEPS ”) platform to
financial institutions as well as providing Gold Loan sourcing.
b) It is stated that in 2012, the Defendant Nos.2 and 3 approached the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 2 of 25
Plaintiff seeking employment. Pursuant thereto, the Plaintiff
appointed the Defendant No.2 as Group Area Manager (Level B-10)
at Badola Bazar (Chahattisgarh) and the Defendant No.3 as Head
Delivery (Level B-4) at Gurgaon vide Offer Letters dated 15.10.2012
and 04.10.2014 respectively.
c) Thereafter, Defendant No.4 approached the Plaintiff for employment.
It is stated that pursuant to his interview, the Defendant No.4 was
appointed as the Project Manager (Level B-8) at Gurgaon vide Offer
Letter dated 16.10.2025. It is stated that the Plaintiff further employed
Defendant Nos.5-20 for various positions between 2015 and 2021.
d) It is stated that in the course of employment of Defendant Nos.2-20, it
was necessary for the Plaintiff to disclose, and consequently
Defendant Nos.2-20 obtained access to, inter alia confidential
information, trade secrets and business connections of the Plaintiff, to
enable them to effectively discharge their duties and responsibilities.
It is stated that for the protection of the Plaintiff‟s interests, Defendant
Nos.2-20 executed identical Non-Disclosure Agreements as a
precondition to their appointment ( hereinafter collectively referred to
as “ Non-Disclosure Agreements ”). It is stated that Clause 11 of the
Non-Disclosure Agreements sets out that they could not disclose such
information to anybody for a period of two years from the date of
their resignation.
e) It is stated that in December 2020, Defendant Nos.2-4 abruptly
tendered their resignations in close succession and the Plaintiff, acting
in good faith, accepted the said resignations and duly completed all
exit formalities.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 3 of 25
f) Subsequently, in or around March 2021, the Plaintiff became aware
that a certain bank had been approached by Defendant No.1 with a
business proposal through Defendant Nos.2-4, who purported to
represent Defendant No.1. It is stated that upon further enquiry, the
Plaintiff discovered, that Defendant Nos.2-4 were actively engaged in
various capacities within Defendant No.1, a company operating in the
same line of business as the Plaintiff, as evident from its
Memorandum of Association.
g) It is stated that a perusal of the Master Data of Defendant No.1 reveals
that it was incorporated on 02.02.2021, barely one month after the
resignation of Defendant Nos.2-4. Further, the said records also reveal
that Defendant No.4 is a Director of Defendant No.1, while Defendant
No.2 is employed therein as a Zonal Manager and that the Defendant
No.3 holds 4,000 equity shares in one M/s Calance Software Pvt. Ltd.,
which is, in fact, the holding company of Defendant No.1.
h) Thereafter, on 18.08.2021, the Plaintiff issued a Legal Notice to the
Defendant No.1 demanding them to stop carrying on any business in
completion with the Plaintiff. The said Legal Notice was not replied
to by the Defendant No.1.
i) It is further stated that Defendant Nos.2-4, in collusion with
Defendant No.1 have been inducing key employees and managerial
personnel of the Plaintiff to breach their employment contracts and
join Defendant No.1. Further, Defendant Nos.2-4 have solicited and
procured the resignation of Defendant Nos.5-20 from the Plaintiff‟s
employment, all of whom have since joined Defendant No.1.
j) It is stated that on lifting the corporate veil of the Defendant No.1, it
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 4 of 25
becomes evident that the said entity is merely a façade for Defendant
Nos.2-4, who are carrying on a competing business by unlawfully
utilising confidential information obtained in trust from the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the Plaintiff has filed the instant Suit on account of breach
of the Non-Disclosure Agreements by the Defendant Nos.2-20, and
their unauthorized usage of the Plaintiff‟s confidential information,
seeking, inter alia , to restrain them from continuing such lawful acts.
4. The instant Suit was listed on 04.04.2022, on which date summons
were issued. The Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”), being I.A. No.5188/2022, was
allowed on the same day. Thereafter, an Application under Order XXXIX
Rule 4 of the CPC, being I.A. No.6453/2022, was filed and subsequently
allowed vide judgment dated 17.08.2022. The Plaintiff thereafter withdrew
the instant Suit on 20.03.2023.
5. Subsequently, the present Application, being CRL.M.A.
No.14926/2023, has been filed by the Defendant No.1 company stating that
the Plaintiff has committed an act of perjury by intentionally raising false
pleas and by furnishing false information during the judicial proceedings
before this Court and that an inquiry under Section 340 read with Section
195(1)(b) CrPC be initiated against the Plaintiff. Notice on the said
Application was issued to the Plaintiff on 29.05.2023.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant No.1 submitted that
Defendant No.1 had independently approached ICICI Bank through its
directors for business purposes, and through Defendant Nos.2-20. It was
further asserted that the Service Provider Agreement between the Defendant
No.1 and ICICI Bank has not impacted the Plaintiff‟s relationship with the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 5 of 25
said bank, which continues to avail services from the Plaintiff.
7. Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 also submitted that
Defendant Nos.5-20 were not solicited or induced, but had voluntarily
joined Defendant No.1. Further, Defendant No.1 was unaware of any prior
employment obligations of such employees, as its policy does not mandate
verification thereof, and it had only relied upon resignation certificates
indicating a one-year restriction on disclosure of sensitive information. In
the absence of any use of the Plaintiff‟s clientele or contacts, it was argued
that no breach of the Non-Disclosure Agreements has occurred.
8. It was further argued that there exists no privity of contract between
the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, and therefore, no cause of action lies
against Defendant No.1 for any alleged breach by former employees.
Defendant No.1, not being a party to the Non-Disclosure Agreements, is not
bound by their terms, and any remedy of the Plaintiff lies only against its ex-
employees. Consequently, restraining Defendant No.1 from carrying on its
business would be legally untenable and would cause irreparable harm.
9. Learned Counsel for the Defendant No.1 further pointed out that the
Plaintiff had obtained the ad-interim injunction Order dated 04.04.2022 by
misrepresenting material facts, particularly by asserting that all Defendant
Nos. 2-20 had executed Non-Disclosure Agreements and had breached the
same. It was further contended that the Non-Disclosure Agreements relied
upon by the Plaintiff were not signed by a majority of the defendants,
including Defendant Nos.5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20,
which was apparent even from the unsigned copies of the Non-Disclosure
Agreements filed by the Plaintiff along with the plaint. The said contention
was recorded in the Order dated 17.08.2022, wherein the Court noted, that
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 6 of 25
(i) the NDAs forming the basis of the Plaintiff‟s case were not executed by
several defendants; (ii) certain defendants such as Defendant Nos.14 and 18
were, in fact, serving with the Plaintiff; and (iii) multiple defendants who
had not signed the NDAs could not be bound by their terms.
10. It was further submitted that Defendant Nos.5, 7, 12, 13, 15, and 20
had filed applications under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC seeking rejection
of the plaint qua them on the ground that no cause of action arose against
them, particularly as the Non-Disclosure Agreements placed on record did
not bear their signatures. Thereafter, Defendant No.1 had also preferred an
application being I.A. No. 19248/2022 under Section 30 and Order XI Rules
12 and 14 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking discovery and production
of the original Non-Disclosure Agreements and Employment Agreements
allegedly executed by Defendant Nos.2-20, as well as details regarding the
re-joining of Defendant Nos.14 and 18 with the Plaintiff and its group
companies. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was fully aware that Defendant
Nos.14 and 18 had been reappointed with it and its group companies in
April 2022, yet this fact was deliberately withheld from the Court, and the
said Defendants were not even deleted from the array of parties until the
withdrawal of the instant Suit.
11. It was further submitted that the conduct of the Plaintiff clearly
indicates that it had played a fraud upon both the Defendants, in as much as:
(i) it avoided producing original documents such as the Non-Disclosure
Agreements and employment records despite specific directions; (ii) it failed
to file a reply to the Application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC; (iii) even
in the replies filed, the Plaintiff failed to produce the original Non-
Disclosure Agreements; and (iv) the documents annexed to the plaint were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 7 of 25
mere photocopies, many of which did not bear signatures of the concerned
Defendants.
12. It was also contended that, upon realising that the pending
Applications would expose the falsity of its claims, the Plaintiff withdrew
the suit on 20.03.2023 to avoid adverse consequences. It was further alleged
that the Plaintiff had obtained and enjoyed an ad-interim injunction for over
four months (from 04.04.2022 to 17.08.2022) on the basis of false pleadings.
13. The mala fide intent of the Plaintiff was further demonstrated by its
act of communicating the interim order dated 04.04.2022 to ICICI Bank vide
email dated 26.04.2022, which led to the suspension of the Service Provider
Agreement dated 23.02.2021 between the Defendant No.1 and ICICI Bank.
It was submitted that, under the guise of restraining Defendant Nos.2-20, the
Plaintiff effectively paralysed the entire business operations of Defendant
No.1, despite there being no privity of contract between them. At the
relevant time, Defendant No.1 had an exclusive business arrangement with
ICICI Bank and employed approximately 125 individuals, whose livelihoods
were adversely affected by the Plaintiff‟s actions. It was also contended that
the Plaintiff‟s act of informing ICICI Bank was contrary to the spirit of the
interim order dated 04.04.2022 and resulted in severe disruption to
Defendant No.1‟s business, including its inability to engage the services of
numerous employees unconnected with the Plaintiff.
14. It was further submitted that in these circumstances, the Plaintiff has
made false claims within the meaning of Section 209 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (“ IPC ”) and has committed offences warranting action under
Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC in order to preserve the sanctity of
judicial proceedings. It was submitted that a reading of the relevant
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 8 of 25
paragraphs of the plaint, in conjunction with the documents filed by the
Plaintiff, would clearly establish that false and misleading averments were
made before this Court.
15. Per contra , learned Counsel for the Plaintiff vehemently denies each
and every submission advanced by the Defendants as being false,
misconceived and devoid of merit. She objected to the present Application,
thereby stating that the Application is frivolous in nature.
16. She further submits that not every incorrect or allegedly false
statement made in the course of judicial proceedings warrants initiation of
action under Section 340 CrPC. Thereafter, she submits that the scope and
intent of Section 340 CrPC is to safeguard the broader administration of
justice, and not to redress individual grievances or perceived personal injury.
17. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff also contended that proceedings
under Section 340 CrPC cannot be permitted to be invoked as a tool for
retaliation, being driven by motives of personal vendetta or revenge, but
must be exercised with circumspection and only in cases where the interests
of justice so demand.
18. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
19. The Defendant No.1 has alleged that the Plaintiff has made false
submissions and has deliberately misled this Court. In this regard, Defendant
No. 1 has drawn the attention of this Court to various paragraphs of the
plaint wherein, according to it, the Plaintiff has made misleading and
incorrect averments. Defendant No. 1 has further alleged that the Plaintiff
made false and misleading submissions during the pendency of the
proceedings and in the course of arguments before this Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 9 of 25
20. Written Statement on behalf of the Defendant No.1 was filed on
27.05.2022. It is pointed out that vide Order dated 30.05.2022, learned
Counsel appearing for the Defendant No.1 on instructions stated that the
Written Statement filed by the Defendant No.1 be treated as Written
Statement on behalf of Defendant Nos.2-20, except for Defendant Nos.14
and 18. Written Statement on behalf of Defendant No.18 was filed on
25.05.2022.
21. It is observed that in order to controvert the submissions of the
Plaintiff that the Non-Disclosure Agreements had been executed by all the
concerned Defendant Nos.2-20, the Defendant Nos.1, 5, 6, 7, 15, 16, 18, 19,
20, in support of their contention, have placed on record Affidavits, wherein
some deponents have admitted to having executed the Non-Disclosure
Agreements, while others have denied the same. The relevant extracts of the
said Affidavits are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience and
ready reference:
Defendant No.1
“12. That the Defendant No.1 realizing that the
Plaintiff were creating forged documents and
producing the same before this Hon’ble Court without
any fear or respect for Hon’ble Courts, decided to get
the signatures of Vikash Kumar Soni allegedly present
on those documents verified and seek an expert opinion
from forensic laboratory as permissible u/s 39 of The
Bhartiya sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
13. That the Defendant No.1 approached Sherlock
Institute of Forensic Science India (SJFS) and
submitted all documents in respect of employment of
Vikash Kumar Soni filed by Plaintiff at Page 245 to
262 with an affidavit dated 10.01.2025. The SIFS has
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 10 of 25
handed over a report dated 01 .04.2025 with the
following observation:
" After doing in-depth analysis of the provided
documents and by cumulative considerations of
the above mentioned reasons it is concluded that
the sign of computerized transplantation of the
signatures are observed on the provided
documents with the help of some snipping tools
from the same source. As no human write two
signatures with same mathematically similarities
which raise question on authenticity of the
signatures. All the described similarities proves
that there is strong possibility that the electronic
transplantation has been done. With the help of
transparency sheet I have observed that the all
the signatures marked as (A-1 to A-5) are
superimposing with each other and transplanted
from same model signature. "
xxx
Defendant No.5
“3. That Mr. Sourabh Jha said that he would send an
affidavit and asked me to sign it and said that if I sign
the said affidavit my name would be deleted from the
Aurigain case and I would be free from the case.
4. That Mr. Sourabh Jha even offered a job in Sahi
Bandhu Fintech Services Pvt. Ltd. for signing the
affidavit. Thereafter, I replied to him that I would let
him know and the call was disconnected.”
xxx
Defendant No.6
“7. Therefore, I am swearing the present affidavit to
confirm that at the time joining the employment, I
signed the appointment letter, NDA and joined the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 11 of 25
company after completion of all joining formalities. I
say that the facts states herein above are true and
correct to my knowledge.”
xxx
Defendant No.7
“7. Therefore, I am swearing the present affidavit to
confirm that at the time joining the employment, I
signed the appointment letter, NDA and joined the
company after completion of all joining formalities. I
say that the facts states herein above are true and
correct to my knowledge.”
xxx
Defendant No.15
“3. That Mr. Sourabh Jha said that he would send an
affidavit and asked me to sign it and said that if I sign
the said affidavit my name would be deleted from the
Aurigain case and I would be free from the case.
4. That Mr. Sourabh Jha even offered a job in Sahi
Bandhu Fintech Services Pvt. Ltd. for signing the
affidavit.”
xxx
Defendant No.16
“7. Therefore, I am swearing the present affidavit to
confirm that at the time joining the employment, I
signed the appointment letter, NDA and joined the
company after completion of all joining formalities. I
say that the facts states herein above are true and
correct to my knowledge.”
xxx
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 12 of 25
Defendant No.18
“7. Therefore, I am swearing the present affidavit to
confirm that at the time joining the employment, I
signed the appointment letter, NDA and joined the
company after completion of all joining formalities. I
say that the facts states herein above are true and
correct to my knowledge.”
xxx
Defendant No.19
“6. I state that on perusal of these documents and my
alleged signatures present on these documents, it is
clear that the same are not my original signatures. I
further state that I had never signed any appointment
letter or any NDA during my employment with
Plaintiff. Copy of appointment letter and a copy of
NDA handed over to Aurigain Consultants Private
Limited by the Plaintiff allegedly bearing my
signatures are annexed as Annexure A-1 (Colly).”
xxx
Defendant No.20
“3. That Mr. Sourabh Jha asked me to come for an
interview for a job but before that there was a
condition that I have to sign an affidavit/agreement.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
22. The Plaintiff in order to deal with the Affidavits of Defendant Nos.5,
15 and 20 dated 27.08.2024, has also filed replies thereto, seeking to
substantiate its stand.
23. It is pertinent to mention that vide Order dated 27.08.2024, learned
Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted before this Court that 7 Non-Disclosure
Agreements had been filed on record (comprising 3 originals and 4
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 13 of 25
photocopies of originals). It was further recorded that Mr. Hari Om Sharma,
Defendant No.5, who was present in Court, stated he had signed the Non-
Disclosure Agreement, and his statement to that effect was duly recorded.
The said Order is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:
“1. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff has handed
over for perusal of this Court the original Non-
Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) executed by Mr.
Mukesh, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Mr. Vikram Singh
and Mr. Vivek Sood. There are four (4) in number.
2. She has also separately handed over for perusal of
this Court photocopies of the NDAs signed in original
by Mr. Rajender Kumar Patel, Mr. Pawan Yadav and
Mr. Khalid Khan. These are three (3) in number.
3. In this manner, the plaintiff has handed over in all
4+3=7 NDAs.
4. The Court Master is directed to have the said seven
(7) NDAs sent to the registry for placing them in a file
cover so as to enable inspection of the said documents
by the defendants.
Defendant nos. 1, 5, 15 and 20
5. Learned counsel for the defendant nos.1, 5, 15 and
20 has handed over affidavits of defendant nos. 5, 15
and 20, which are directed to be taken on record. The
counsel for the defendant shall take appropriate steps
in this regard. The said defendant nos. 5, 15 and 20
are present in Court and confirm the contents of the
said affidavits.
6. Learned senior counsel for the plaintiff states on
instructions that defendant no. 5, Mr. Hari Om Sharma
had executed an NDA and the plaintiff is in possession
of photocopy of the said NDA, which was executed in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 14 of 25
original on 31.08.2021.
7. Mr. Hariom Sharma, who is present in Court has
been examined and he states that in 2021 after he had
left the employment of the plaintiff and had joined
another Company, he had received a phone call from
the plaintiff to execute some papers including the NDA
so as to enable release of his pending dues.
8. Mr. Hariom Sharma states that documents were
received by him on email and he had signed this
agreement i.e., the NDA subsequently in 2021. He
states that the copy of the e-mail through which the
NDA was sent to him for signatures is available with
him and he will file the same within two (2) weeks. He
states that however, this NDA was not signed by him
during the course of employment with the plaintiff.
9. At request, list on 13.01.2025. ”
24. It is further pointed out that Defendant No.1, upon apprehending that
the Plaintiff was fabricating and placing forged documents on record before
this Court, undertook steps to have the signatures of Defendant No.19, as
appearing on the alleged Non-Disclosure Agreement, independently verified
by seeking an expert opinion from a forensic laboratory. In this regard,
Defendant No.1 approached Sherlock Institute of Forensic Science (“ SIFS ”)
and submitted all revenant documents pertaining to Defendant No.19, which
had been filed by the Plaintiff along with an Affidavit dated 10.01.2025. The
relevant portion of the Forensic Report which was furnished on 01.04.2025,
which has already been reproduced in the foregoing paragraph.
25. At the outset, it is pertinent to refer to the provisions of Section 340
CrPC read with Section 195 CrPC, which govern the procedure and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 15 of 25
conditions for initiating prosecution in respect offences affecting the
administration of justice, and which read as under:
“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section
195. —(1) When, upon an application made to it in this
behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is
expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry
should be made into any offence referred to in clause
(b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to
have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding
in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a
document produced or given in evidence in a
proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such
preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,—
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having
jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of
the accused before such Magistrate, or if the
alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court
thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in
custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give
evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-
section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case
where that Court has neither made a complaint under
sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected
an application for the making of such complaint, be
exercised by the Court to which such former Court is
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 16 of 25
subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of
section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be
signed,—
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a
High Court, by such officer of the Court as the
Court may appoint;
[(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of
the Court or by such officer of the Court as the
Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.]
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same
meaning as in section 195.”
xxx
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of
public servants, for offences against public justice
and for offences relating to documents given in
evidence.— (1) No Court shall take cognizance—
(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to
188 (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of
1860), or
(ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such
offence, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence,
except on the complaint in writing of the public servant
concerned or of some other public servant to whom he
is administratively subordinate;
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 17 of 25
following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive),
199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when
such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in
relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or
(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or
punishable under section 471, section 475 or section
476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to
have been committed in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any
Court, or
(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt
to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in
sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),
[except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by
such officer of the Court as that Court may authorise
in writing in this behalf, or of some other Court to
which that Court is subordinate.]
(2) Where a complaint has been made by a public
servant under clause (a) of sub-section (1) any
authority to which he is administratively subordinate
may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a
copy of such order to the Court; and upon its receipt
by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on
the complaint:
Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if
the trial in the Court of first instance has been
concluded.
(3) In clause (b) of sub-section (1), the term “Court”
means a Civil, Revenue or Criminal Court, and
includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central,
Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a
Court for the purposes of this section.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 18 of 25
(4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-section (1), a
Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court
to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable
decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the
case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal
ordinarily lies, to the Principal Court having ordinary
original civil jurisdiction within whose local
jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate:
Provided that—
(a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the
Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the
Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be
subordinate;
(b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue
Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to
the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of
the case or proceeding in connection with which the
offence is alleged to have been committed.”
26. A perusal of the Section 340 CrPC, would show that before any action
under Section 195 CrPC is taken, the Court must form an opinion that it is
expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an
offence referred to in Clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 195 CrPC,
which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding
before the Court in respect of a document produced or given in evidence.
Therefore, firstly, the Court, must form an opinion as to whether, it is
expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry must be held before
proceeding under Section 195(1)(b)(i)&(ii) and after holding preliminary
inquiry, the Court can give a finding to that effect or can make a complaint
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 19 of 25
thereafter in writing or send the matter to the Magistrate of First Class
having the jurisdiction or take sufficient security for the appearance of the
person before the Magistrate.
27. For the purposes of the present case, this Court is to consider as to
whether the allegations made in the Application under Section 340 CrPC
comes within the ambit of the said provision. It is to point out that Section
340(1) refers back to Section 195 CrPC, a reference to the same is
necessary.
28. Section 195(1)(b) is to be considered in the present case. Clause (b)
thereof comprises three sub-clauses. Sub-clause (i) pertains to offences
under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211 and 228 of the IPC,
primarily relating to the giving of false evidence and allied offences. In
contrast, Sub-clause (ii) addresses offences involving forgery, namely those
described under Section 463 of IPC or punishable under Sections 471, 475
or 476 of IPC, when such offences are alleged in respect of documents
produced or relied upon in judicial proceedings. Sub-clause (iii) relates to
criminal conspiracy to commit or attempt to commit or abatement of any
offences.
29. Chapter XI of the IPC is titled as “Of false evidence and offences
against public justice system”. The scheme of the IPC makes it clear that
“false evidence” is defined under Section 191 of IPC, which encompasses
statements made under oath or legal obligation that are knowingly false or
not believed to be true. Section 193 of IPC prescribes punishment for
intentionally giving or fabricating false evidence at any stage of a judicial
proceeding, and its scope extends beyond formal evidence to include false
statements made on oath before a court. Sections 194 to 196 and 199 to 200
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 20 of 25
of IPC similarly deal with varying forms of false declarations and their use
in evidence.
30. In the present case, the focus lies on Sub-clause (i) of Section
195(1)(b) CrPC, which concerns to offences committed during judicial
proceedings. Section 209 of IPC relates to penalizing dishonestly or
fraudulently making a false claim/averments in pleadings to a Court with
intent to injure or annoy. Whereas, Sub-clause (ii) of Section 195(1)(b)
CrPC, which concerns forgery related offences. Section 463 of IPC being
the foundational provision, defines forgery as the making of false documents
with an intent to cause damage, support a claim or title, or commit fraud.
Section 471 of IPC further criminalises the fraudulent or dishonest use of a
forged document as genuine, with knowledge or reason to believe its falsity.
31. It is settled law that for attracting the provisions of Section
195(1)(b)(i) CrPC there must be an intention on part of the alleged offender
to directly mislead the Court into forming a certain opinion on a point
material to the result of the proceedings and subsequently should have a
direct nexus with the Court proceedings. Whereas, for attracting the
provisions of 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, it is necessary to examine whether the
documents in question are prima facie forged and whether they were created
with the intent to support a claim or title. Additionally, it must be established
that such documents were knowingly used as genuine in judicial
proceedings. The determinative factors, therefore, are the existence of a false
document, the requisite intent behind its creation, and its subsequent use
with knowledge of its falsity.
32. The Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah,
(2005) 4 SCC 370 has elaborately considered the scope and ambit of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 21 of 25
Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC and delineated the circumstances
under the said provision must be construed strictly and are intended to apply
only where the offence has a direct nexus with the administration of justice
and has been committed in relation to proceeding in a Court. The relevant
paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:
“23. In view of the language used in Section 340
CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint
regarding commission of an offence referred to in
Section 195(1)(b), as the section is conditioned by the
words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the
interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will
be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and
not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the
court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a
finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests
of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the
offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This
expediency will normally be judged by the court by
weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the
person affected by such forgery or forged document,
but having regard to the effect or impact, such
commission of offence has upon administration of
justice. It is possible that such forged document or
forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury
to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a
very valuable property or status or the like, but such
document may be just a piece of evidence produced or
given in evidence in court, where voluminous
evidence may have been adduced and the effect of
such piece of evidence on the broad concept of
administration of justice may be minimal. In such
circumstances, the court may not consider it
expedient in the interest of justice to make a
complaint. The broad view of clause (b)(ii), as
canvassed by learned counsel for the appellants,
would render the victim of such forgery or forged
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 22 of 25
document remediless. Any interpretation which leads
to a situation where a victim of a crime is rendered
remediless, has to be discarded. ” (Emphasis Supplied)
33. In the instant case, it was observed that the pleadings in the Plaint
asserted that Defendant Nos.2-20 had executed the Non-Disclosure
Agreements and were bound not to disclose confidential information,
formed the very basis on which the Plaintiff sought and obtained an ad-
interim injunction Order dated 04.04.2022. However, it subsequently
transpired that such pleadings were not supported by the material placed on
record. Accordingly, this Court, upon consideration of the matter, vacated
the interim Order vide Order dated 17.08.2022, observing, that there was
lack of evidentiary value and sufficient material on record, and that the
Plaintiff had failed to substantiate its case in terms of the averments made in
the Plaint.
34. A prima facie case is, therefore, made out that false averments have
been made in the Plaint. The pleadings are found to be inconsistent with the
documents placed on record by the Plaintiff itself. The documentary record
revealed that Defendant Nos.5-7 and 12-20 had not signed the Non-
Disclosure Agreements relied upon by the Plaintiff.
35. Subsequently, certain Defendants, namely Defendant Nos.6, 7, 16 and
18 filed Affidavits in Court stating that they had executed the Non-
Disclosure Agreements, while Defendant No.5, in his statement recorded
before the Court on 27.08.2024, admitted to having signed the same. In
contrast, Defendant No.19, Mr. Vikash Kumar Soni specifically alleged that
his signatures had been forged and that he had never executed any such
document. Further, Defendant No.15 stated that he had been contacted by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 23 of 25
the Plaintiff to sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement as a precondition for
deletion of his name from the „Aurigain case‟ and the Defendant No.20
stated that he had been contacted by the Plaintiff to sign the Non-Disclosure
Agreement as a precondition for employment, but their Affidavits did not
unequivocally clarify whether they had, in fact, executed the same. The
remaining Defendants, whose signatures were not found on the Non-
Disclosure Agreements filed by the Plaintiff, did not file any Affidavits
clarifying their position.
36. Further inconsistencies arise in relation to Defendant Nos.14 and 18,
in respect of whom the Plaintiff had alleged execution of the Non-Disclosure
Agreements and misuse of confidential information in association with
Defendant No.1, whereas both these Defendants had re-joined the Plaintiff
company. Further, Defendant No.3 resigned from the Plaintiff company on
29.09.2021 and joined the Defendant No.1 only on 08.02.2022, therefore,
the Defendant No.3 is restricted only for a period of 1 year, which period
had since expired.
37. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the ingredients of
Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC are attracted, as the alleged false statements form
part of the judicial record and have a direct bearing on the administration of
justice. The test is not merely whether the Plaintiff entered the witness box,
but whether false statements, knowingly made and verified, were placed
before this Court with the intent to secure favourable orders, thereby
impacting the sanctity of judicial proceedings.
38. In the present case, averments have been made in the Plaint by the
Plaintiff knowing fully well that they are false. Defendant No.19 has
categorically stated that in the Non-Disclosure Statement filed by the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 24 of 25
Plaintiff, that the signatures have been forged.
39. On the basis of the false statement, the Plaintiff was the beneficiary of
stay and thereafter, in order to cover up its lapses, the Plaintiff has resorted
to filing certain documents, which, in the opinion of this Court, are prima
facie fabricated.
40. It is made clear that this Court is not making any observations on the
same and it will be for the Trial Court to take a decision on this aspect. Any
conclusive opinion from this Court would be detrimental to the Plaintiff.
The opinion has been arrived at after giving sufficient opportunity to the
Respondent.
41. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that the instant
case is one wherein it is expedient or in the interest of justice for the Court ,
to initiate the proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.
42. Therefore, this Court directs the Registrar General of this Court to
prepare a complaint in terms of Section 195 of CrPC read with Section 340
CrPC and file it before the competent Court for action.
43. Resultantly, the instant Application is allowed.
SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J
MAY 04, 2026
JR
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:PRATEEK
Signing Date:07.05.2026
05.57.21
CS(OS) 190/2022 Page 25 of 25