Section 340 proceedings are unwarranted for an incomplete document absent evidence of deliberate deception.

The deceased defendant’s legal heir, LR-1(a), challenged a Joint Registrar’s order concerning the supply of the complete paper book and a judgment in Badri Bhagat Jhandewala Temple Society v. DDA, CS(OS) 1679/1982.

The plaintiff acknowledged that the complete judgment had been supplied later; the Court accordingly removed the Joint Registrar’s observation that LR-1(a)’s submission was an afterthought and dismissed the appeal as having become infructuous.

In the same order, the Court considered LR-1(a)’s applications seeking, among other reliefs, contempt proceedings for failure to file certified copies of pleadings, additional issues, criminal proceedings over the initially incomplete judgment, and recording of court proceedings.

Whether the appeal warranted further relief after the complete judgment had been supplied and whether the Joint Registrar’s “afterthought” observation should stand.

Whether failure to file certified copies of pleadings, despite the asserted efforts to obtain them, warranted contempt proceedings.

Whether the proposed additional issues, including one concerning estoppel based on the 1960 suit, should be framed.

Whether filing an initially incomplete copy of the judgment justified initiating criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC or Section 379 BNSS against the plaintiff or its counsel.

Whether the alleged risk of false prosecution justified an order for recording the proceedings.

The Court considered Rule 5 of Chapter II of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018, in relation to the appeal.

Sections 2(b) and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, in relation to the contempt application.

The Court considered Order XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC concerning additional issues.

It treated res judicata as an instance of estoppel by record, referring to Seth Ghasiram Seth Dalchand Palliwal v. Mt. Kundanbai, AIR 1940 Nag 163, and Govindji Jevat and Co. v. Shree Saraswati Mills Ltd., AIR 1982 Bom 76.

For applications under Section 340 CrPC and the corresponding Section 379 BNSS, the Court relied on Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar, 2026 INSC 724, for the principle that criminal proceedings for false evidence should be initiated only in exceptional circumstances, not for innocent or immaterial inaccuracies.

Because the complete copy of the judgment had ultimately been supplied, the Court removed the Joint Registrar’s adverse “afterthought” observation but held that no further relief remained in the appeal.

It declined contempt proceedings over the missing certified copies because the plaintiff’s inability to locate the suit file was not shown to be deliberate or wilful.

It found no need to frame separate issues concerning alleged false testimony or the judgment, and held that the existing res judicata issue encompassed the proposed estoppel plea as estoppel by record.

Although the initially filed judgment was incomplete, a complete certified copy was later filed and supplied, and there was no material showing deliberate intent to mislead; the threshold for criminal proceedings was therefore not met.

The alleged fear of false prosecution was also insufficient to justify recording the proceedings.

The Court condoned the delay in filing the contempt petition but dismissed the petition; it also declined to frame the proposed additional issues, dismissed the applications seeking criminal proceedings and the request for recording proceedings, and allowed the exemption applications subject to just exceptions.

The Registry was directed to report why the original file of CS(OS) 1679/1982 had not been attached despite earlier directions.

The parties were directed to appear before the Local Commissioner for scheduling and completion of evidence.