Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 340 of CrPC - Main points and insights:
Section 340 CrPC prescribes the procedure for cases involving offences under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC, primarily relating to false evidence or false accusations ["Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - Chhattisgarh"]. It is an exception to the general rule that any person can lodge a complaint, requiring a court to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice before initiating proceedings ["Sonia Tripathy vs State of Odisha - Orissa"].
The section confers discretionary power on the court, not an absolute obligation, to conduct a preliminary enquiry or to proceed with a complaint, emphasizing caution and the need for expediency in justice ["Jarnial Singh VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Jitendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Malikram Chandrakar VS Namita Chandrakar W/o Shri Jitendra Chandrakar - Chhattisgarh"]. The court's opinion must be based on the circumstances, and the decision to proceed is not mandatory ["Al Amin Garments Haat Pvt. Ltd. VS Jitendra Jain - Calcutta"].
The provision is not to be misused as a tool for harassment or to punish discrepancies in evidence; rather, it should be invoked only when the court finds it expedient and justified ["Sonia Tripathy vs State of Odisha - Orissa"], ["Smt. Reena Panwar vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"].
There is no appeal against orders passed under certain subsections like Section 343(2), which involve adjournments or procedural directions ["Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - Chhattisgarh"].
Courts are cautioned to exercise this power carefully, ensuring that proceedings under Section 340 are initiated only when justified, and not as a routine or frivolous measure ["Sonia Tripathy vs State of Odisha - Orissa"], ["SHRI VINOD KUMAR P NAIR vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka"].
Analogous provisions in Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes:
The provision in Section 340 CrPC is not analogous to Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which provides for exemption from notice but does not contain a similar discretionary power for initiating proceedings ["RAM PARTAP vs PUNJAB WAKF BOARD AND ORS - Punjab and Haryana"].
Unlike the civil provisions, Section 340 CrPC involves a judicial opinion that it is in the interest of justice to proceed, highlighting its unique procedural and discretionary nature ["Jitendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Malikram Chandrakar VS Namita Chandrakar W/o Shri Jitendra Chandrakar - Chhattisgarh"].
The section is specifically designed for criminal cases involving false evidence or related offences, and its invocation requires careful judicial discretion rather than automatic application ["Sonia Tripathy vs State of Odisha - Orissa"].
Legal implications and cautions:
The Supreme Court and various high courts emphasize that Section 340 should be used judiciously, only when there is a clear case of false evidence or false accusations, and not for trivial discrepancies ["Sonia Tripathy vs State of Odisha - Orissa"], ["Smt. Reena Panwar vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"].
Misuse or overuse of this provision can lead to proceedings being declared bad in law, especially if the court's opinion is not properly formed or if proceedings are initiated without sufficient basis ["Garima Shaw Alias Guddi Shaw v. Umesh Kumar Shaw - Calcutta"].
The courts have also highlighted that the power under Section 340 is to prevent misuse and false allegations, and should be exercised with utmost caution and only when the circumstances justify it ["Subham Roy Choudhury VS Sreejoyee Chakraborty - Calcutta"].
Summary: Section 340 CrPC provides a specialized, discretionary procedure for addressing false evidence or accusations, requiring the court to form an opinion that proceedings are in the interest of justice. It is not analogous to civil procedural provisions like Section 80 CPC and must be invoked cautiously to prevent misuse. Courts emphasize careful judicial discretion and adherence to procedural safeguards when initiating proceedings under this section ["Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - Chhattisgarh"] ["Sonia Tripathy vs State of Odisha - Orissa"] ["Smt. Reena Panwar vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"].
In the intricate world of Indian law, courts often grapple with maintaining the sanctity of judicial proceedings. A common query arises: What is the analogous provision to Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) in the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.)? This question touches on critical aspects of how courts handle offences like perjury or fabrication of evidence that undermine justice. While there may be superficial similarities in procedural powers, such as summoning witnesses, Section 340 Cr.P.C. stands distinctly as a criminal mechanism without a direct CPC counterpart. This post delves into its nature, procedures, comparisons, and judicial views to provide clarity.
Note: This article offers general information based on legal precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Section 340 Cr.P.C. empowers courts to initiate proceedings for offences affecting the administration of justice, such as giving false evidence or fabricating documents, when these occur in or relate to court proceedings. It is invoked when a court finds it expedient to inquire into such matters, typically under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Pritish VS State Of Maharashtra - 2001 8 Supreme 336Amarsang Nathaji as Himself & as Karta & Manager VS Hardik Harshadbhai Patel - 2016 8 Supreme 318.
Key features include:- Suo motu or on application: Courts can act on their own or upon a party's request.- Preliminary inquiry: Not a full trial, but an initial examination to record findings Pritish VS State Of Maharashtra - 2001 8 Supreme 336.- Criminal nature: Leads to a written complaint forwarded to a Magistrate for trial Amarsang Nathaji as Himself & as Karta & Manager VS Hardik Harshadbhai Patel - 2016 8 Supreme 318.
As highlighted, Section 340 Cr.P.C. provides a specific mechanism for courts to examine, record findings, and initiate complaints regarding offences affecting the administration of justice Pritish VS State Of Maharashtra - 2001 8 Supreme 336Amarsang Nathaji as Himself & as Karta & Manager VS Hardik Harshadbhai Patel - 2016 8 Supreme 318. This safeguards judicial integrity without immediately launching a criminal prosecution.
During a Section 340 inquiry, courts wield powers akin to criminal courts:- Summoning and examining witnesses.- Recording evidence.- Making a prima facie finding on whether an offence appears committed Pritish VS State Of Maharashtra - 2001 8 Supreme 336.
These powers ensure a thorough yet preliminary probe. For instance, the court may ask, as in one case, Reena Panwar why she should not be dealt with according to section 340 Cr.P.C. Smt. Reena Panwar vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - 2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 399043. However, it stops short of a full trial, distinguishing it from standard criminal procedures.
Is there a direct equivalent in C.P.C.? Generally, no. Section 340 is rooted in criminal law, while C.P.C. governs civil suits. Courts have clarified that the analogy with the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) is limited; while civil courts have powers to summon witnesses under CPC (Order XI Rule 12, Order XVIII Rule 17), these are not directly equivalent to the powers exercised during a Section 340 inquiry, which is a criminal proceeding Gopal Chandra Das VS State Of Bihar - 2001 5 Supreme 160.
C.P.C. provisions like Order XI Rule 12 (discovery) or Order XVIII Rule 17 (additional evidence) allow witness summoning in civil contexts, but they lack Section 340's focus on criminal offences against justice. The powers during a Section 340 inquiry are akin to criminal courts and not civil courts Gopal Chandra Das VS State Of Bihar - 2001 5 Supreme 160. Thus, any analogy is procedural at best, not substantive.
One source notes, This provision is not analogous to Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code because under Section 80(2) of CPC, there is a provision for exemption of the notice but no such provision RAM PARTAP vs PUNJAB WAKF BOARD AND ORS, underscoring procedural disparities even in unrelated sections.
Indian courts have consistently viewed Section 340 proceedings as criminal, emphasizing discretion and expediency. In Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhey Shyam (1971(1) SCC 774), the Supreme Court held that prosecutions for perjury under the predecessor to Section 340 (Section 476 Cr.P.C., 1878) should only proceed where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely Santosh Chandrashekar Shetty VS Ameeta Santosh Shetty - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 77. This sets a high threshold.
In family disputes, courts exercise caution. For example, in a case involving false statements under IPC sections like 191-193 (perjury), a court rejected Section 340 action at an interim stage, stating, Allegations will have to be gone into at the time of final hearing... it is not expedient in the interests of justice to take action Santosh Chandrashekar Shetty VS Ameeta Santosh Shetty - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 77. It directed evidence recording on income disclosures instead.
Dismissals are common when no deliberate falsehood exists. In my view, the subject Orders speak for themselves, and therefore the question of making any false statement with the intention of obtaining a favourable order does not arise. Thus the provision of S. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted Satyanarayan Nandkishore Pande VS Vinay Jagdishchandra Pande - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 2686Satyanarayan Nandkishore Pande VS Vinay Jagdishchandra Pande - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 2695. In a property dispute, the court found parties transparent with the Court and dismissed the application Satyanarayan Nandkishore Pande VS Vinay Jagdishchandra Pande - 2018 Supreme(Bom) 2686.
Another instance involved a witness whose statement did not amount to deliberate or intentional falsehood, avoiding Section 340 invocation Smt. Reena Panwar vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - 2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 399043. These cases illustrate courts' reluctance without clear evidence of intent.
High Courts also differentiate Section 340 from other powers like Section 482 Cr.P.C., which prevents abuse of process but is distinct Sumeet Paul VS State Of Meghalaya - 2013 Supreme(Megh) 41.
Civil courts must avoid blending C.P.C. tools into Section 340 inquiries, limiting analogies to basics like witness summoning Gopal Chandra Das VS State Of Bihar - 2001 5 Supreme 160.
Section 340 Cr.P.C. remains a unique tool for protecting judicial processes, with no full-fledged analogous provision in C.P.C. While procedural overlaps exist—like summoning witnesses—the framework, scope, and criminal essence set it apart. Judicial precedents reinforce measured use, prioritizing deliberate offences Santosh Chandrashekar Shetty VS Ameeta Santosh Shetty - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 77.
Key Takeaways:- Section 340 enables preliminary inquiries into justice-affecting offences Pritish VS State Of Maharashtra - 2001 8 Supreme 336.- Powers mirror criminal courts, not civil ones Gopal Chandra Das VS State Of Bihar - 2001 5 Supreme 160.- Invoke only for expedient, prima facie cases Amarsang Nathaji as Himself & as Karta & Manager VS Hardik Harshadbhai Patel - 2016 8 Supreme 318.- Limited CPC analogy aids procedure, not substance.
Understanding these nuances helps navigate legal proceedings effectively. Stay informed on evolving case law for better advocacy.
#Section340CrPC, #CrPCvsCPC, #LegalInsights
Section 340 of CrPC provides the procedure for offences enumerated in Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC. This provision is one of the exceptions to the general rule that any person can lodge complaint of an offence. ... 340 of CrPC. ... It is the settled legal position that the said provision cannot be resorted to, to satisfy a private grudge of the litigant. ... For the sake of convenience, Section 340 of CrPC is reproduced below :- “340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. ... It is....
Second, it is also not mandatory that the Court should make a complaint even where the Court forms the opinion referred to in section 340(1). This is in view of the fact that the provision confers the power on the court to form an opinion. ... Learned counsel appearing for the respondents urges, with considerable vehemence and industry that the proceedings under section 340 of the CrPC allows an opportunity of hearing to the proposed accused and places emphasis on the words used in the said provision. ... The Supreme Cou....
Here the word `may' used conveys the sense that it is not mandatory that the Court is compulsorily bound to make preliminary enquiry before proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.C., as in this provision itself it is also stated that conducting of preliminary enquiry is the prerogative ... The provision only creates a bar against taking cognizance of an offence in certain specified situations except upon complaint by Court. ... Section 340 under Chapter XXVI of Cr.P.C. deals with the same and for the ready reference the sa....
of Section 340 Cr.P.C. ... Reena Panwar why she should not be dealt with according to section 340 Cr.P.C.” 4. ... Cr.P.C. and the statement of the applicant, it is apparently clear that she has deposed before the Court the facts, which were in her knowledge and she has not tried to mislead deliberately, intentionally and her statement would not amount to deliberate or intentional falsehood, which would invoke the provision ... He would further submit that the applicant did not give any fabricated and false evidence before the Court, which....
of Section 340 Cr.P.C. ... Reena Panwar why she should not be dealt with according to section 340 Cr.P.C.” 4. ... Cr.P.C. and the statement of the applicant, it is apparently clear that she has deposed before the Court the facts, which were in her knowledge and she has not tried to mislead deliberately, intentionally and her statement would not amount to deliberate or intentional falsehood, which would invoke the provision ... 340 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge is that she did not unfold the identity of the phone ....
A Single Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the learned trial court has given a go by to the provision of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. The approach adopted by the learned trial court is unwholesome and is depreciable. ... Secondly, such statements were made by the respondent for wrongful gain causing wrongful loss to the appellant and her parents and the allegations being criminal in nature, the trial court ought to have proceeded to hear out Misc Case No.26 of 2016 in accordance with the provision under Section #HL_STA....
There is a word of caution inbuilt in that provision itself that the action to be taken should be expedient in the interest of justice. Therefore, it is incumbent that the power given by Section 340 of the Code should be used with utmost care and after due consideration. ... It would be advantageous to go through Section 340 of Cr.P.C. which deals with procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195 of Cr.P.C which reads thus: 340. ... Section 340 Cr.P.C. prescribes the procedure as to how a complaint may b....
This provision is not analogus to Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code because under Section 80(2) of CPC, there is a provision for exemption of the notice but no such provision span style="font-family:ArialMT
Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not intended to be used as a tool to punish every discrepancy or inconsistency in evidence. The provision confers a discretionary power upon the Court, to be exercised only when it is expedient in the interests of justice to prosecute the person for giving false evidence. ... Before this court proceeds further, it deems it fit to advert to section 340 Cr.P.C. Section 340 Cr.P.C is extracted which reads as under " 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Section 195. 1. ... Therefore s....
However, overlooking the real provision of S.340 read with S.195 of the CrPC, the Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate - II, Calcutta took cognizance of the alleged offences treating as complaint case. Accordingly, same is bad in law and shall be liable to be set aside. ... Before deciding the case in hand, this Court would like to enumerate herein below the provisions of S.340 read with S.195 of the CrPC for ready reference.S.340 of CrPC reads as under: "340. ... Reading of the sub-section ....
The Bench of three Hon’ble Judges of the Apex Court in the case of Chajoo Ram Vs. Radhey Shyam and Anr., 1971(1) SCC 774 had an occasion to consider the scope of section 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1878. This provision is pari materia to section 340 of Cr.P.C. The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. In paragraph 7, the Apex Court has held thus :- “7.
In my view, the subject Orders speak for themselves, and therefore the question of making any false statement with the intention of obtaining a favourable order does not arise. Thus the provision of S. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted.
Thus the provision of S. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not attracted. In my view, the subject Orders speak for themselves, and therefore the question of making any false statement with the intention of obtaining a favourable order does not arise.
Section 482 Cr.P.C. wide power has been given to the High Court to apply it for the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of law. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is quite different from the provision u/s 320 Cr.P.C.
In other words, the scope of a petition filed under Section 17(b) is limited one. In case M.L. Sethi v. R.P. Kapoor, AIR 1972 SC 2379, it is held by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115, C.P.C. is of a limited character and the provisions contained in Section 115, C.P.C. are not directed against conclusions of law and fact in which question of jurisdiction is not involved. It is held that Section 115 empowers the High Court to satisfy itself on 3 matters, (a) that the order of the subordinate Court is within its jurisdiction; ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
