False allegations alone do not justify perjury proceedings when prosecution is not expedient in the interests of justice.

The petitioner sought action under Sections 340 read with 195(b)(1) Cr.P.C., alleging that the respondent made false statements in a civil plaint and supporting affidavits, including allegations about the petitioner’s criminal antecedents.

The Civil Judge dismissed the application, finding no relevant variation in the plaint and affidavit and no basis to proceed in the public interest. The appellate court dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C.

The underlying civil dispute was later settled by compromise before the First Appellate Court.

Whether the courts below erred in declining to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. on the allegation that the respondent had knowingly made false statements in pleadings and affidavits

Whether the parties’ compromise made it inexpedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry or complaint for perjury

Section 340 Cr.P.C. permits a court to initiate a complaint for specified offences affecting the administration of justice when the court forms the requisite opinion; under Section 195(b)(1) Cr.P.C., such offences are subject to the statutory complaint requirement.

As explained in Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, (2017) 1 SCC 113, the material must disclose a prima facie case and it must be expedient in the interests of justice to inquire into the alleged offence.

A contradictory statement alone is insufficient: intentional falsity must be indicated.

A preliminary inquiry is discretionary, not mandatory, and even where an offence appears to have been committed, the court must decide whether making a complaint is warranted.

The High Court considered the concurrent findings that no material variation had been established and that proceeding was not expedient in the interests of justice.

Although the respondent had made imputations against the petitioner in an affidavit, those allegations alone did not justify perjury proceedings.

The parties had settled the underlying dispute before the First Appellate Court, and the Court concluded that this circumstance, alongside the applicable Section 340 test, did not warrant an inquiry or complaint.

It dismissed the petition as devoid of merit.