Courts must not initiate Section 340 CrPC proceedings merely on disputed allegations pending civil adjudication.

The appellants and Respondent No. 1 were children of late Ram Chandra Sharma, who allegedly died intestate on 28 April 2022. The appellants instituted CS(OS) 246/2023 for partition, rendition of accounts and recovery. By order dated 15 July 2025, Respondent No. 1 was directed to disclose, by affidavit, the assets received by him upon his father’s demise.

Respondent No. 1 filed an affidavit dated 3 September 2025 asserting that he had inherited the estate under a Will dated 25 June 2021. He disclosed immovable properties, bank balances, fixed deposits and mutual funds, but stated that a Noida property and certain funds belonged to M/s Ambika Garments Pvt. Ltd., while insurance proceeds belonged to his minor son.

Following an application alleging non-compliance, the Single Judge directed him to file an additional affidavit concerning the company’s bank accounts and investments. In his affidavit dated 15 January 2026, Respondent No. 1 maintained that he had inherited a 70% shareholding in the company, not its assets, and that the Noida property and HDFC Bank funds were corporate assets.

The appellants filed an application under Section 340 CrPC, alleging that Respondent No. 1 had knowingly made false statements on oath, relied on fabricated documents, and caused false share-transfer filings before the Ministry of Corporate Affairs. They alleged that shares had been shown as transferred by their deceased mother and medically incapacitated father.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the application, holding that the allegations were connected with disputed issues pending trial and that initiation of parallel proceedings under Section 340 CrPC was not warranted at that stage, while preserving the appellants’ liberty to seek such relief if appropriate material emerged during trial. The present appeal challenged that order.

Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the appellants’ application under Section 340 CrPC seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against Respondent No. 1.

Whether the allegations of false affidavits, fabricated documents, forged signatures and allegedly unlawful share transfers established, at that stage, that it was expedient in the interests of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC read with Section 195(1)(b) CrPC.

Whether initiation of Section 340 CrPC proceedings during the pendency of the civil suit would amount to an inappropriate parallel inquiry into disputed questions of fact.

Section 340 CrPC confers a discretionary power on the court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and make a complaint for offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b) CrPC only where the court forms an opinion that such action is expedient in the interests of justice.

In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370, the Supreme Court held that such proceedings are not mandatory upon every allegation of falsehood; the court must assess the impact of the alleged offence on the administration of justice rather than merely the private injury caused.

In Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, (2017) 1 SCC 113, the Supreme Court held that a contradictory statement alone is insufficient; intentional falsehood or fabrication and the expediency of prosecution in the interests of justice must be established.

The court also recognised that deliberate falsehood affecting the purity of judicial proceedings cannot be lightly ignored, as stated in Sanjeev Kumar Mittal v. State, (2010) 174 DLT 214.

The Division Bench held that the appellants’ allegations—concerning the genuineness of documents, validity of share transfers, medical incapacity, alleged forgery, post-death bank transactions and the extent of the deceased’s estate—were serious but remained interconnected with the merits of the pending partition suit.

Determining whether the affidavits were false would require appreciation of evidence and adjudication of disputed questions of fact. The material then available did not enable the court to conclude that a deliberate attempt to interfere with the administration of justice had been established at the preliminary stage.

Initiating criminal proceedings would consequently create a parallel inquiry into matters directly awaiting adjudication in the civil suit, which was considered inappropriate before the parties had led evidence.

The Single Judge’s decision to defer the Section 340 inquiry, while preserving the appellants’ liberty to renew the request if incriminating material emerged during trial, was therefore consistent with the governing principles.

The appeal was dismissed in limine, and all pending applications were disposed of.

The appellants’ liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC if material emerged during the civil trial indicating an offence under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC remained intact.