Section 340 CrPC mandates clear evidence of perjury or misconduct; mere procedural disputes do not qualify.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE

th

ON THE 24 OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 15845 of 2018 ARVIND KUMAR VERMA Versus ASHOK KUMAR AHIRWAR AND OTHERS Appearance:

The applicant (Arvind Kumar Verma) present in person.

Respondent No.1 present in person.

ORDER The present application has been filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 by the applicant, seeking initiation of proceedings against the respondents, including Mr. Arun Kumar Pateria, for alleged offences affecting the administration of justice, such as perjury, fabrication of evidence, and concealment of facts in relation to judicial proceedings.

The applicant contends that the respondents deliberately concealed prior bail conditions, surnames, and other material facts to mislead the Court, to obtain undue benefits such as bail or adjournments, and harass the applicant/witness.

The submissions of the applicant, in essence, seeks to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused and their counsel on the following grounds:

(i) Alleged concealment of the surname “Vijolia” in Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA Case No. 9784/12 MCRC and other omissions in Case No.

8642/16 MCRC.

(ii) Alleged violation of previously imposed bail conditions.

(iii) Misrepresentation regarding the date of occurrence of offences in Case No. 298/16.

(iv) Alleged concealment of evidence, selective reliance on documents, and misleading statements in various proceedings.Alleged misconduct in the filing of affidavits and procedural irregularities in Case No. 6168/17 (MCRC)

and Case No. 238/18.

Heard the applicant and respondent No.1.

Section 340 CrPC provides for the procedure to be followed by the Court for offences affecting the administration of justice, primarily focusing on perjury, fabrication of evidence, or acts deliberately intended to mislead the court. The scope of Section 340 is narrowly defined and is intended for cases where there is clear, direct, and prima facie evidence of such offences occurring in the course of judicial proceedings.

After careful examination of the material available on record and the submissions made by the applicant and respondent No.1, the Court observes the following:

(i) The allegations made by the applicant are primarily disputes regarding procedural conduct, adequacy of Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA affidavits, and the manner in which bail applications or other court proceedings were pursued. Such allegations, while possibly reflecting improper conduct or strategic litigation, do not, on the face of it, constitute offences under Section 340 CrPC as there is no clear proof of deliberate falsehood, fabrication of evidence, or perjury.

(ii) The applicant has primarily relied on circumstantial and inferential arguments, suggesting concealment or misleading conduct by the accused and their counsel. There is no direct material demonstrating that the respondents deliberately committed perjury or fabricated evidence in the judicial proceedings cited. Mere discrepancies, filing errors, or strategic litigation maneuvers do not meet the high threshold required to invoke Section 340 CrPC.

(iii) The alleged discrepancies in dates and prior bail conditions appear to be matters of procedural detail or interpretation rather than deliberate falsification of material facts intended to mislead the Court.

(iv) Allegations against counsel, Mr. Arun Kumar Pateria, are largely derivative, asserting that he “actively assisted” the accused. The Court finds no independent evidence to establish that the counsel knowingly participated in acts of perjury or fabrication of evidence. Professional advocacy, including strategic filing, cannot be equated with Signature Not Verified Signed by: YOGENDRA criminal misconduct unless there is unambiguous proof of intentional falsification.

(v) The applicant highlights multiple cases, where the respondents allegedly misled the Court. However, the