Section 340 CrPC proceedings require deliberate evidence fabrication and expediency in justice, not mere factual discrepancies.

The appellants, parents of the deceased Atul Pratap, filed a claim petition (OA No. 167/2017) before the Railway Claims Tribunal (RCT) seeking compensation for their son’s death, which they alleged resulted from an accidental fall from a train while traveling from Lucknow to New Delhi.

On 22.03.2018, the RCT dismissed the claim, noting that the journey ticket produced specified a route via Kanpur-Ghaziabad, whereas the deceased’s body was recovered between Pilkhuwa and Dasna—a location not on the ticketed route.

Consequently, the RCT issued a show-cause notice and subsequently ordered the initiation of criminal proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on 27.06.2018, alleging the appellants had produced a fabricated ticket.

The appellants filed two appeals: one challenging the dismissal of the claim and the other challenging the criminal proceedings.

1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition due to the discrepancy between the ticketed route and the location of the body.

2. Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC was warranted based on the inference of fabrication drawn from the route discrepancy.

The court applied the Railways Act, 1989, regarding the definitions of "untoward incident" and "bona fide passenger" required for compensation.

For the criminal aspect, the court applied Section 340 of the CrPC, which requires a court to form an opinion that it is "expedient in the interest of justice" to inquire into an offense involving the administration of justice.

It further relied on the precedent K.T.M.S. Mohd. and Anr. vs. Union of India (1992) 3 SCC 178, which establishes that prosecution under Section 340 CrPC requires a deliberate and conscious attempt to mislead the court and should be exercised with utmost care.

Regarding the claim dismissal, the court held that since the ticket specified a route via Kanpur and the body was found on the Pilkhuwa-Dasna line, the foundation of the claim was compromised.

The court refused to entertain the appellants' suggestion of an alternate route at the appellate stage, as it was not part of the original pleadings, citing the principle that parties cannot reconstruct their case after the fact.

Consequently, the Tribunal’s dismissal was deemed a "plausible view".

However, regarding the Section 340 CrPC proceedings, the court observed that the appellants (the deceased's parents) were not present during the journey and likely relied on surrounding information.

The court reasoned that a discrepancy sufficient to dismiss a civil claim does not automatically satisfy the higher threshold of "deliberate fabrication" for criminal prosecution.

The Tribunal's conclusion of fabrication was an inference rather than a finding based on independent material, and thus, the requirement of "expediency in the interest of justice" was not met.

Conversely, the Court allowed FAO 543/2018, setting aside the RCT’s orders dated 22.03.2018 and 27.06.2018 insofar as they directed the initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against the appellants.

The appellants were granted the benefit of the doubt regarding the allegation of deliberate fabrication.