Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar
Supreme Court of India, 21 July 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 724
A prima facie finding that a party and his counsel made 'wrong statements' in pleadings, without a finding of 'false statements' or of expediency in the interests of justice, cannot support a complaint under Section 340 CrPC.
Facts
In a civil suit, the trial Court had passed an order under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC against the defendant (the first appellant). In his appeal and stay application, drafted by his counsel (the second appellant), the word 'dismissed' appeared instead of 'disposed of' and the word 'no' was omitted. The appellate Court stayed the trial Court's order. The plaintiffs filed a criminal contempt petition; the High Court did not proceed with it but gave liberty to move under Section 340 CrPC. Before that application was filed, the defendant had applied to correct the typing mistakes, with the counsel's explanation and apology. The appellate Court found a prima facie case that 'wrong statements' were made and directed a complaint under Sections 193, 199 and 200 IPC against the defendant and his counsel. The High Court dismissed their appeal under Section 341 CrPC.
Questions before the Court
- Can a complaint under Section 340 CrPC be directed against a party and his counsel on a prima facie satisfaction that 'wrong statements' were made in pleadings?
- Is a finding that an inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice necessary before such a direction?
- Could the High Court, in the appeal of the persons aggrieved, add findings that the first Court had not recorded?
What the Court held
- The threshold for an offence under Sections 199 and 200 IPC is a 'false statement', not a 'wrong statement'. A false statement carries a deliberate intent to deceive coupled with knowledge; inadvertent errors are only wrong statements. The order, which found only wrong statements, did not meet the threshold.
- Section 340(1) CrPC requires the Court to form an opinion that an inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice. Ordering an inquiry without that opinion is bad in law.
- The High Court could not, in an appeal by the appellants, record new findings of a false affidavit and of expediency that the first Court had not recorded; the appellants could not be placed in a worse position by appealing.
- The errors were typographical, explained and sought to be corrected before the Section 340 application. No case was made out; the orders were set aside and the application dismissed.
Why it matters
The judgment distinguishes a 'wrong statement' from a 'false statement' for proceedings under Section 340 CrPC and holds that inadvertent errors in pleadings, explained and sought to be corrected, cannot found a complaint for false evidence against a party or counsel. It restates that expediency in the interests of justice must be recorded, and reminds courts that Section 340 should not be used to delay the main proceedings.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“There is a material difference between making a ‘wrong statement’ and ‘false statement’ in the context of Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code. A ‘wrong statement’ of fact may not always have the character of a ‘false statement’. While making of a ‘wrong statement’ may not fall within the ambit of Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, a ‘false statement’ would qualify as relevant material for being considered as an offence under the said provisions. The threshold for initiating action for an offence punishable under Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code is the making of a ‘false statement’ and not the making of a ‘wrong statement’.”
“This would indicate that on the mere making of a ‘wrong statement’, an inquiry cannot be ordered. The forming of an opinion by the Court that holding of an inquiry is in fact expedient in the interests of justice is also a must. Ordering an inquiry without formation of any opinion as required by Section 340 (1) of the Cr.P.C. would render the order bad in law being not in accordance with the mandate of Section 340 (1).”
“The gravity of a statement that is false is definitely greater than that of a statement that is wrong. Inadvertent errors or mistakes in a statement could be termed as a ‘wrong statement’. However, a ‘false statement’ would imply something more than a mere untruth as it carries with it an intent to deceive coupled with knowledge, actual or constructive.”
“The object is clear inasmuch as the main proceedings ought to be proceeded with and decided instead of diverting them with the aid of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. It is noticed that at times, the aid of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. is sought to be taken merely to delay the adjudication of the substantive proceedings, as also in the present case.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 379 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 195(1)(b), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Now: BNSS 215 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 193, Indian Penal CodeNow: BNS 229 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 199, Indian Penal CodeNow: BNS 236 (NCRB correspondence table)
- Section 200, Indian Penal CodeNow: BNS 237 (NCRB correspondence table)
Case and bench
- Parties
- Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. 1365 of 2015
- Decided
- 21 July 2026
- Bench
- Ujjal Bhuyan, Atul S. Chandurkar
- Opinions
- Unanimous judgment of the Court by Atul S. Chandurkar, J., with Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Questions on this case
From free Law Maker papers. Try each one before you open the answer.
Question 1, Legal Current Affairs: July 2026
In Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar (21 July 2026), an appellate court had directed a complaint for offences of false evidence against a party and his advocate because of typing errors in a memorandum of appeal and a stay application. The Supreme Court quashed the direction, holding that:
- A. a direction under Section 340 CrPC needs the prior sanction of the State Government when the complaint names an advocate
- B. inadvertent errors are at most 'wrong' statements, while a 'false' statement needs an intent to deceive with knowledge
- C. a direction under Section 340 CrPC can be made only by a High Court and never by a District Judge hearing an appeal
- D. an advocate who drafts pleadings is immune from prosecution for any statement made in them on the client's instructions
Show the answer
B. inadvertent errors are at most 'wrong' statements, while a 'false' statement needs an intent to deceive with knowledge
Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ. (2026 INSC 724) distinguished a wrong statement from a false one, which carries intent to deceive with knowledge, and found no deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance. The Court also recalled Iqbal Singh Marwah that a complaint should normally be directed after the main proceedings end. Section 340 CrPC is now Section 379 BNSS.