Prosecution for perjury under the code requires a court to form a prima facie opinion of deliberate falsehood and determine that an inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice. Mere typographical errors or negligent statements, lacking an intent to deceive, do not warrant such drastic legal consequences.

JUDGMENT :

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J

1. The short issue that arises for consideration in this Criminal Appeal is whether on the basis of a prima facie satisfaction that ‘wrong statements’ were made by a party in his pleadings that were prepared by his counsel, power under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹[For short, ‘the Cr.P.C’] could have been exercised for directing filing of a complaint against both of them for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860²[For short, ‘the Penal Code’]?

2. The facts in issue lie in a narrow compass. The first and second respondent³[For short, ‘the plaintiffs’] filed a civil suit against the predecessors-in-title⁴[For short, ‘the defendants’] of the first appellant seeking to restrain them from causing any obstruction to the enjoyment of their property, amongst other reliefs. An application for temporary injunction during pendency of the suit having been moved, the trial Court by its order dated 03.04.2001 restrained the defendants from causing any obstruction to the plaintiffs’ occupation and also permitted the plaintiffs to approach the water meter so as to effect any replacement and repairs thereto. The defendants preferred a miscellaneous appeal for challenging the order of temporary injunction passed by the trial Court. In the meanwhile, the first appellant⁵[For short, ‘the defendant’] purchased the suit property from the original defendants and on 16.01.2003 got himself impleaded as a defendant in the said suit. During pendency of the said appeal, the plaintiffs moved an application under provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908⁶[For short, ‘the CPC’] making a grievance that the defendant had breached the order of temporary injunction. They prayed for an order of attachment to be thus passed. By an order dated 13.10.2003, the trial Court in exercise of power under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the CPC directed the defendant to restore the earlier position at the suit site and also issued a show cause notice to him as to why he should not be held guilty of committing breach of the order of temporary injunction. The defendant preferred a miscellaneous appeal and challenged the aforesaid order. Along with the miscellaneous appeal, an application for stay was also moved. On 17.01.2004, the appellate Court stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 13.10.2003 passed by the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had made incorrect and false statements in the miscellaneous appeal as well as in the application for stay that had been filed before the appellate Court. In view of such statements, the order passed by the trial Court had been stayed by the appellate Court. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a criminal contempt petition before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court⁷[For short, ‘the High Court’] against the defendant and his learned counsel, the second appellant⁸[For short, ‘the learned counsel’] herein. The learned Judge of the appellate Court who had passed the order dated 17.01.2004 was also impleaded as a respondent in the said contempt petition. The High Court by its order dated 12.10.2004 observed that it did not intend to proceed with the contempt proceedings. It, however, granted liberty to the plaintiffs to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. against the de