Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query!
Scanned Judgements…!
Jurisdiction of Courts Regarding Section 340 Cr.P.C. - Courts have the authority to conduct preliminary inquiries under Section 340 Cr.P.C. when dealing with offenses related to false documents or evidence, particularly under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. The section is designed as a procedural safeguard for courts before filing a formal complaint, and the decision to initiate proceedings depends on the court’s opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice ["Sufia vs State Of U.P. - Allahabad"], ["Jitendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Malikram Chandrakar VS Namita Chandrakar W/o Shri Jitendra Chandrakar - Chhattisgarh"], ["Garima Shaw Alias Guddi Shaw v. Umesh Kumar Shaw - Calcutta"], ["Jarnial Singh VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - Chhattisgarh"], ["Al Amin Garments Haat Pvt. Ltd. VS Jitendra Jain - Calcutta"], ["Subham Roy Choudhury VS Sreejoyee Chakraborty - Calcutta"], ["Mubashir Ali VS State of Uttar Pradesh - Allahabad"].
Conditions and Procedure Under Section 340 Cr.P.C. - The section mandates that the court, after forming an opinion that proceedings are necessary, may record a finding, make a written complaint, and send it to a Magistrate with proper jurisdiction. The section emphasizes that a complaint cannot be filed outside the court’s jurisdiction or without the court’s opinion that such action is justified ["Sufia vs State Of U.P. - Allahabad"], ["Jitendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Malikram Chandrakar VS Namita Chandrakar W/o Shri Jitendra Chandrakar - Chhattisgarh"], ["Garima Shaw Alias Guddi Shaw v. Umesh Kumar Shaw - Calcutta"], ["Jarnial Singh VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - Chhattisgarh"], ["Al Amin Garments Haat Pvt. Ltd. VS Jitendra Jain - Calcutta"], ["Subham Roy Choudhury VS Sreejoyee Chakraborty - Calcutta"].
Discretion and Judicial Interpretation - The language of Section 340 Cr.P.C. indicates that courts are not obliged to initiate a complaint unless they find it expedient and proper after preliminary inquiry. The Supreme Court has clarified that the section's use of may means the inquiry is mandatory but not compulsory, and the court's opinion on expediency is crucial ["Al Amin Garments Haat Pvt. Ltd. VS Jitendra Jain - Calcutta"], ["Subham Roy Choudhury VS Sreejoyee Chakraborty - Calcutta"].
Jurisdiction and Competence - The jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 340 is confined to courts within the territorial limits where the offense or false evidence allegedly occurred. The section also restricts the power to directly take cognizance of offenses under Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. outside this procedural framework; proceedings must follow the prescribed process involving a written complaint and jurisdictional magistrate ["Sufia vs State Of U.P. - Allahabad"], ["Jitendra Chandrakar S/o Shri Malikram Chandrakar VS Namita Chandrakar W/o Shri Jitendra Chandrakar - Chhattisgarh"], ["Garima Shaw Alias Guddi Shaw v. Umesh Kumar Shaw - Calcutta"], ["Jarnial Singh VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"].
Supervisory and Appellate Limits - Under Article 227, courts have supervisory jurisdiction, which is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or patent illegality, not to reappraise factual findings or to act as an appellate authority over the merits of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Challenges to orders related to Section 340 should be based on jurisdictional errors, not on the merits of the case ["RAVI KANT SAGAR vs ANUGYA SHAIWAL - Uttarakhand"].
Analysis and Conclusion:Courts possess the jurisdiction to conduct preliminary inquiries under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in cases involving false documents or evidence, especially under Section 195(1)(b). Such proceedings are conditional upon the court’s opinion that initiating a complaint is in the interest of justice. The process requires a written complaint sent to a competent jurisdiction magistrate, and courts are not obliged to proceed if they find no expediency. Moreover, jurisdiction is territorial and procedural, and courts cannot bypass these provisions to directly initiate criminal proceedings outside the prescribed framework. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited to jurisdictional errors, not merits, ensuring that proceedings under Section 340 are conducted within the proper legal scope.
In legal proceedings, questions often arise about a court's power to address offences like giving false evidence or fabricating documents. A common query is the jurisdiction of Section 340 CrPC, particularly whether it applies in various court settings, such as civil or even matters indirectly linked to disputes like those in rented places where false claims might surface. This section empowers courts to initiate inquiries into offences under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC when expedient in the interests of justice. But does this jurisdiction extend universally? Let's break it down.
This guide draws from key judicial precedents to explain the scope, drawing on established principles without offering specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), outlines the procedure for cases mentioned in Section 195 CrPC. It allows any court—civil, revenue, or criminal—to hold a preliminary inquiry if it believes an offence (e.g., perjury under IPC Sections 191-193 or forgery) has occurred in relation to its proceedings or documents produced therein. The trigger? The court's opinion that proceeding is expedient in the interests of justiceShanti Devi Prasad VS State of Jharkhand - 2008 0 Supreme(Jhk) 975O. P. Bharuka VS Shakuntala Modi - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 198P. N. Peruvazhuthi VS K. Saravanan - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 2358.
Unlike regular complaints, this is a special mechanism to protect judicial integrity. Importantly, it's not limited to criminal courts; civil courts wield similar powers when offences tie back to their proceedings O. P. Bharuka VS Shakuntala Modi - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 198.
A pivotal finding: Section 340 CrPC confers jurisdiction on all courts, including civil, revenue, and criminal ones, provided the offence links to their authority under Section 195(1)(b) Shanti Devi Prasad VS State of Jharkhand - 2008 0 Supreme(Jhk) 975O. P. Bharuka VS Shakuntala Modi - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 198P. N. Peruvazhuthi VS K. Saravanan - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 2358. For instance:
This inclusivity ensures no safe haven for undermining justice, even in non-criminal forums O. P. Bharuka VS Shakuntala Modi - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 198.
The power is flexible:- Suo Motu: Courts can act on their own initiative O. P. Bharuka VS Shakuntala Modi - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 198.- On Application: By aggrieved parties or even strangers to the case, post-proceedings if needed K. K. Krishnan VS State Of Kerala, Represented By the Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 104Ramesh Jaiswal VS Semjeet Singh Brar - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2860.
No strict timeline binds applications; they can follow concluded proceedings K. K. Krishnan VS State Of Kerala, Represented By the Public Prosecutor - 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 104Sreejith Premachandran, S/O Premachandran VS Biju Ramesh, S/o Ramesan - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 991. However, not every misstatement qualifies. As noted, it is difficult to lay down a principle that every incorrect statements given by a witness in a judicial proceedings shall be dealt under Section 340 of Cr.P.C Sajeevan, S/o. Balakrishnan Pillai VS State Of Kerala - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 915. An officer relying on records isn't presumed to know every detail, avoiding perjury labels for honest errors Sajeevan, S/o. Balakrishnan Pillai VS State Of Kerala - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 915.
Once invoked, Section 340 proceedings are criminal in nature, though initiated by civil courts possibly O. P. Bharuka VS Shakuntala Modi - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 198. Orders by High Courts are typically not appealable under Section 341 CrPC Ramesh Jaiswal VS Semjeet Singh Brar - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2860Sanjay Gupta And Another VS State - 2022 0 Supreme(Del) 1536.
The process involves:1. Preliminary inquiry.2. Court's opinion on expediency.3. Complaint to magistrate if warranted Kundalal VS Vidyasagar Rao Inspector of Police, Task Force, Control Room, Hyderabad - 1994 0 Supreme(AP) 520.
Section 195(1)(b) bars direct cognizance without court complaint, making Section 340 the gateway Kundalal VS Vidyasagar Rao Inspector of Police, Task Force, Control Room, Hyderabad - 1994 0 Supreme(AP) 520.
Judgments reinforce limits:- Not for Every Falsehood: In a perjury allegation against a government officer, the court quashed proceedings, holding that omissions from official records don't equate to intentional falsity. Therefore, even otherwise, it could not be held that petitioner herein intentionally given false evidence before court, so as to proceed under Section 340 read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C Sajeevan, S/o. Balakrishnan Pillai VS State Of Kerala - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 915.- Specific Offences like Section 209 IPC: For dishonest false claims, all ingredients (false claim, fraud, court intent) must exist; mere disputes don't suffice G. S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. VS Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1982. Courts dismissed frivolous applications as abuse of process, imposing costs G. S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. VS Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1982.- Link to Administration of Justice: Offences must affect judicial administration; property disputes with civil/criminal overlap require police probes first V. G. A. Dayasagar VS State of Andhra Pradesh - 2011 Supreme(AP) 1192.
Other cases highlight discretion: Not every FIR or claim triggers Section 340, especially if alternative civil remedies exist Shahab Uddin Mazumdar VS State of Assam - 2010 Supreme(Gau) 534.
If the offence doesn't relate to the court's proceedings, jurisdiction fails Shanti Devi Prasad VS State of Jharkhand - 2008 0 Supreme(Jhk) 975.
In rented place disputes (e.g., false affidavits on tenancy), a civil court could invoke if tied to its suit, but verify relation strictly.
Section 340 CrPC casts a wide net for jurisdiction, empowering diverse courts to safeguard proceedings against offences like perjury—provided expediency in justice prevails O. P. Bharuka VS Shakuntala Modi - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 198. It's a tool for integrity, not vendetta. Broad yet bounded by discretion, it underscores judicial vigilance.
Key Takeaways:- Applies to civil, revenue, criminal courts alike P. N. Peruvazhuthi VS K. Saravanan - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 2358.- Requires offence-proceedings nexus and justice interest Kundalal VS Vidyasagar Rao Inspector of Police, Task Force, Control Room, Hyderabad - 1994 0 Supreme(AP) 520.- Discretionary; not for minor errors Sajeevan, S/o. Balakrishnan Pillai VS State Of Kerala - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 915.- High Court orders often final Ramesh Jaiswal VS Semjeet Singh Brar - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2860.
This is general information based on precedents; laws evolve, and outcomes vary. Seek professional advice for your situation.
References:1. Shanti Devi Prasad VS State of Jharkhand - 2008 0 Supreme(Jhk) 975 - Transferee courts' jurisdiction.2. O. P. Bharuka VS Shakuntala Modi - 2004 0 Supreme(Gau) 198 - All courts, criminal character.3. P. N. Peruvazhuthi VS K. Saravanan - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 2358 - Inclusive 'court' definition.4. Kundalal VS Vidyasagar Rao Inspector of Police, Task Force, Control Room, Hyderabad - 1994 0 Supreme(AP) 520 - Section 195 interplay.5. XXXX VS State Of Kerala - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 888 - Expediency mandatory.6. Ramesh Jaiswal VS Semjeet Singh Brar - 2012 0 Supreme(Del) 2860 - Non-appealability.7. Sajeevan, S/o. Balakrishnan Pillai VS State Of Kerala - 2022 Supreme(Ker) 915 - Perjury thresholds.8. G. S Berar and Co. Pvt. Ltd. VS Trans Asian Industries Expositions Pvt. Ltd. - 2022 Supreme(Del) 1982 - Section 209 ingredients.
#Section340CrPC, #CrPCJurisdiction, #PerjuryLaw
(corresponding Section 379 BNSS) is maintainable and Consolidation Officer or other consolidation authorities would be, well within their jurisdiction to conduct preliminary enquiry regarding the offence u/s 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. relating to giving or producing false document or evidence before it and after ... Cr.P.C. and if any false document is produced or false evidence is given before the Consolidation Officer then the Consolidation Officer would be, within....
It is in respect of such offences the court has jurisdiction to proceed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and a complaint outside the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. cannot be filed by any civil, revenue or criminal court under its inherent jurisdiction. 7. ... In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence refe....
In view of the language used in S.340, CrPC the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in S.195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice." ... Case No. 9 of 2019 was pending before the said 6th Metropolitan Magistrate but without going through the relevant provisions of S.340 read with S.195 of the CrPC, Learned Addit....
In view of this argument, it is relevant to refer Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and the same is as under: “340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. ... Therefore, his knowledge with regard to the entire facts in relation to the prosecution should not have been presumed or expected, since his knowledge regarding the case emanates from the official records that he could gather within the short span of time he obtained. ... Principal, Motor ....
In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is conditioned by the words "Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice." ... Once an opinion has been formed with regard to the offence having been committed under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court needs to make a complaint in writing and the....
The Supreme Court in Pritish further opined that it is always open to the Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry to reach the finding as stated above, though, absence of any such preliminary inquiry would not vitiate a finding reached by the Court regarding its opinion. ... proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary, - (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a....
In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1) (b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. ... 340 of CrPC. ... For the sake of convenience, Section 340 of CrPC is reproduced below :- “340. Procedure in cases mentioned in ....
The trial courts in both the proceedings ought to have considered the applications under Section 340 of the IPC filed by the appellant by making preliminary inquiry, regarding its finding to that effect and then making a complaint thereof in writing and sending it to a competent court having jurisdiction ... In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding#HL_E....
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction. ... to that effect (b) make a complaint thereof in writing and (c) send it to Magistrate of First Class having jurisdiction. ... What promulgates Section 340 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as hereunder: “340. ... Case No. 1192 of 2020 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. whereby the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. moved by the appel....
The scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction or committed a patent illegality resulting in grave injustice. ... Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227, seeking quashing of the impugned order a....
3. Clearly, Section 340 Cr PC relates back to Section 195 (1)(b) of the Cr PC.
This court (Coram: A.Y. Kogje, J.) has dealt with the case of Mr. V.D. Nakrani (P1) wherein he was accused by the complainant P2 and the petition was not allowed. This court is in full agreement with the argument advanced by learned advocate Mr. N.K. prima facie, in the last paragraph of the judgment it is also held that as per the request of the learned advocate, observations made in that order are only for that petition and, therefore, this court has independently assessed the complaint file....
30. The Honourable Supreme Court in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1371, has culled out the principles regarding Sections 227 and 228 Cr. P.C., which would broadly apply to Sections 238 and 239 Cr. P.C. and in paragraph 21, observed as follows: Exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 227 and 228 Cr PC. On consideration of the authorities about the scope of Sections 227 and 228 of the Code, the following principles emerge:
It is emphatical that Section 340 Cr.PC falls within the Chapter XXVI of the Cr.PC which contains provisions as to the offences affecting the administration of justice as the title of the chapter emphasizes. This way also the offences envisaged in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.PC must involve acts, which would have affected the administration of justice akin to the preamble of it." In other words, no complaint can be made by a Court regarding any offence falling within the ambit of Se....
The crux of the matter for decision in the instant case is as to whether the facts and circumstances of the case attracts the provision of section 340 of the Cr.PC and the allegation levelled by tho respondent-wife in the FIR on the basis of the facts as indicated above it is necessary to go through the submissions made by the learned counsel as to the applicability of section 340 of the Cr.PC. For ready reference section 340 of the Cr.PC is quoted herein below : 340. Procedu....
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
