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…!
Application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is generally decided at the final stage of proceedings – Courts tend to reserve decision on Section 340 applications until the conclusion of the main case, unless specific circumstances warrant earlier consideration. For example, ["Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 466"] states, It is also well settled law that an application under Section 340 of the CrPC ought to be normally considered at the time of final decision of the case only and not at the interim stage.
Pending matters influence the timing of decision – If there is an appeal or other proceedings pending, courts often defer deciding Section 340 applications, considering it appropriate to wait until the conclusion of those proceedings. ["VIJENDRA NATH GUPTA Vs THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. - Delhi"] notes, the matter would be remitted back to the NCLT Bench-1, Chennai to deal with the Application... on merits as preferred under Section 340 (1) exclusively in accordance with law.
Decisions are often deferred to avoid conflicting rulings or to ensure comprehensive adjudication – Courts prefer to decide on Section 340 applications after the main case is finalized to avoid premature judgments that could prejudice the final outcome. ["DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL SONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. - Delhi"]-80_2016 2019_DHC_6173) mentions, Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be resorted to, when genuineness of documents alleged to be forged and false in a case, was still subject matter of a pending civil suit, indicating the importance of finality in related proceedings.
Some courts have explicitly held that the application should be decided at the final stage – The consensus across multiple judgments is that Section 340 applications are best disposed of after the main proceedings, unless exceptional circumstances exist. ["DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL SONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. - Delhi"] states, shall be final, and shall not be subject to revision, implying that such applications are to be decided at appropriate final stages.
Exceptions for early consideration are rare and typically based on specific legal or factual circumstances – Courts may consider earlier if there is a clear need, but generally, the prevailing view is that these applications are to be decided after the main case’s final judgment. ["Subham Roy Choudhury VS Sreejoyee Chakraborty - Calcutta"] notes, the application filed by the appellant invites the court to draw up a proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. immediately after the respondent filed an application, but the court emphasizes that decision as to whether a party makes a false statement... cannot be decided without taking evidence.
Analysis and Conclusion:The consistent theme across the provided sources is that pending Section 340 Cr.P.C. applications are typically decided after the final judgment of the main case. Courts prefer to await the conclusion of related proceedings, appeals, or civil suits to ensure a comprehensive and informed decision. While some exceptional circumstances may warrant earlier consideration, the general principle remains that Section 340 applications should be decided before the final decision only if the circumstances justify it, otherwise they are deferred to the conclusion of the primary proceedings ["Vikram Bakshi VS R. P. Khosla - Supreme Court"], ["Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 466"], ["VIJENDRA NATH GUPTA Vs THE STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. - Delhi"], ["DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL SONS PVT. LTD. & ANR. vs IFB AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD. - Delhi"]-80_2016).
In legal proceedings across India, parties often file applications under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to address alleged offenses like perjury or forgery that undermine the administration of justice. A common question arises: in any matter if 340 criminal procedure code application pending then it will be decided before final decision? This query touches on critical procedural aspects, balancing the need for justice with the efficiency of court processes.
This blog post delves into the legal principles governing the timing of Section 340 CrPC applications, drawing from key judgments and related cases. While courts generally prefer resolving these applications before finalizing the main case, nuances exist. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Section 340 CrPC empowers courts to initiate proceedings when it appears expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into offenses committed in or relating to judicial proceedings, such as giving false evidence (perjury) under Section 193 IPC or fabricating false evidence under Section 192 IPC. These are criminal in nature and aim to protect the integrity of the judicial process. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855
Proceedings under Section 340 are typically initiated via an application by a party or suo motu by the court. The court conducts a preliminary inquiry to determine if prosecution is warranted before filing a complaint under Section 340(2).
Courts have consistently held that Section 340 applications should generally be decided before the final adjudication of the main case. The pendency of such an application does not automatically stay or delay the main proceedings unless the court expressly orders it. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855
The Supreme Court in Vishal Kapoor vs. Mrs. Sonal Kapoor (judgment dated 2nd September 2014) clarified: An application under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. ought to be normally considered at the time of final decision of the case only... INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855 This underscores that these applications are best addressed near the conclusion of the main matter to avoid interference or unnecessary prolongation.
Key points from judicial precedents include:- Section 340 proceedings are not tools to delay the main case; finality should not be circumvented by indefinite pendency. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855- They must be resolved at an appropriate stage, typically prior to or at the final judgment. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855- Courts exercise discretion judiciously during pendency but prioritize timely disposal. Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 466
While the ideal timing is before the final decision, courts may entertain applications earlier if circumstances demand, such as when offenses directly impact ongoing proceedings. However, premature or dilatory filings may be dismissed or deferred. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855
In family court contexts under the Family Courts Act, 1984 (Section 19(1)), applications are considered at suitable stages, not automatically halting the main case. Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 466
The law emphasizes that a pending Section 340 application does not prevent the final decision in the primary matter. For instance, in arbitration challenges under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, courts have opposed delays caused by Section 340 applications, prioritizing expeditious disposal to avoid accruing interest burdens. A2z Waste Management (Meerut) Pvt. Ltd Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Yuvraj Sharma VS Construction And Design Services, U. P. Jal Nigam, Noida Thru. Director/Project Manager - 2024 Supreme(All) 740 The court noted: The liability of interest is increasing day by day and the delay in final disposal of the matter would not be in the interest of the respondent no. 3 also... A2z Waste Management (Meerut) Pvt. Ltd Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Yuvraj Sharma VS Construction And Design Services, U. P. Jal Nigam, Noida Thru. Director/Project Manager - 2024 Supreme(All) 740
Several judgments reinforce the principle that Section 340 matters should not prolong main cases:
Right to Hearing Limited: Proposed accused lack a right to be heard at the inquiry stage under Section 340(1). In a case involving arbitration arbitrator appointment, the court relied on Pritish vs. State of Maharashtra (affirmed in State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1240), holding: The proposed accused do not have a right to be heard at the stage of inquiry under section 340(1) of the CrPC. Al Amin Garments Haat Pvt. Ltd. VS Jitendra Jain - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 62
No Mandatory Preliminary Inquiry: In witness resiling cases, courts can form opinions under Section 340 without hearing the accused if material suffices, dismissing challenges to trial court orders. Jarnial Singh VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1864
Tribunal Jurisdiction: NCLT/NCLAT qualify as 'courts' under Section 195 CrPC, allowing Section 340 applications, but rejection on merits was quashed for fresh consideration. Anil Kumar Ojha vs CS C Ramasubramaniam - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1152
Perjury and Forgery: Even pre-filing forgeries trigger Section 340 if documents are produced in court, as in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah. Arun Dhawan VS Lokesh Dhawan - 2014 Supreme(Del) 2571
Family and Maintenance Cases: Settlements may require withdrawal of pending Section 340 applications, but they don't bind minors' rights. Jitendra Pal Singh VS State of Uttarakhand - 2022 Supreme(UK) 338
These cases illustrate that while pendency is tolerated, courts discourage misuse to stall proceedings. D. K. PANDEY VS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION KUMAON REGION, NAINITAL - 2016 Supreme(UK) 878 One ruling stated: It has been stated that the Court can take decision under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of final decision of the case. D. K. PANDEY VS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION KUMAON REGION, NAINITAL - 2016 Supreme(UK) 878
Exceptions arise in specific scenarios:- Expediency in Justice: If the offense gravely affects proceedings, early decision may occur. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855- Delaying Tactics: Premature applications as stalling tools are dismissed. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855- Post-Final Judgment: Rarely continued unless conditions met, to uphold finality. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855
Courts apply mind cautiously, as in demolition cases under Bihar Municipal Act, directing final orders post-consideration without coercive steps. Sanjeev Kumar VS State Of Bihar - 2021 Supreme(Pat) 225
In summary, while Section 340 applications pending during a matter are generally resolved beforehand, they shouldn't impede finality. This framework upholds judicial integrity without compromising speed. Always seek professional legal counsel for case-specific guidance, as outcomes vary by facts and jurisdiction.
References:1. INDRAPRASTHA POWER GENERATION VS FAHEEM BAIG - 2015 0 Supreme(Del) 855: Core judgment on timing.2. Tilendra Sahu S/o Shri Manohar Sahu VS Roshini Sahu W/o Tilendra Sahu - 2022 0 Supreme(Chh) 466: Family Courts context.3. Additional sources: A2z Waste Management (Meerut) Pvt. Ltd Thru. Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Yuvraj Sharma VS Construction And Design Services, U. P. Jal Nigam, Noida Thru. Director/Project Manager - 2024 Supreme(All) 740, Al Amin Garments Haat Pvt. Ltd. VS Jitendra Jain - 2024 Supreme(Cal) 62, Jarnial Singh VS State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1864, Anil Kumar Ojha vs CS C Ramasubramaniam - 2024 Supreme(Online)(NCLAT) 1152, Arun Dhawan VS Lokesh Dhawan - 2014 Supreme(Del) 2571, D. K. PANDEY VS ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR SCHOOL EDUCATION KUMAON REGION, NAINITAL - 2016 Supreme(UK) 878
#Section340CrPC, #CrPCProceedings, #LegalTiming
taking note of the Judgment dated 08.05.2014 passed in SLP (Criminal) No. 6873 of 2010 by this Court that the CP 114 of 2007 and application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. was to be decided by the CLB/NCLT, the High Court decided not to interfere in the issue. ... CP 114 of 2007 itself is decided, the issue relating to the genuineness of the minutes of AGM dated 30.09.2006, as raised in the application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. bef....
It is also well settled law that an application under Section 340 of the CrPC ought to be normally considered at the time of final decision of the case only and not at the interim stage. ... 340 of CrPC. ... Section 343(2) confers a discretion upon a court trying the complaint to adjourn the hearing of the case if it is brought to its notice that an appeal is pending against the decision arrived at in the judicial proceeding out of ....
I.P.C., the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed. ... The liability of interest is increasing day by day and the delay in final disposal of the matter would not be in the interest of the respondent no. 3 also, yet the respondent no. 3 is strongly opposing the petition filed for seeking a direction of expeditious disposal of the matter. ... The respondent no. 3 has filed an application under Section 340#H....
The decision in Pritish was affirmed by the larger Bench, in reference, in State of Punjab vs. Jasbir Singh; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1240 (decided on 15.9.2022). The larger Bench in Jasbir Singh relied on the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. ... The petitioner has taken out an application under section 340 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for a preliminary enquiry into the alleged fraudulent and illegal acts of the respondents in connection with AP 124 of 2023. .....
Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. ... Cr.P.C., cannot be said to be without application of mind. ... By this order, we propose to decide above-referred to two petitions, wherein the challenge is to the order passed by the trial Court on an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. for initiating ... Sub-section (1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C. ....
Any party of the proceeding can file an application under S.340 read with S.195 of the CrPC before the Court, where the proceeding is pending for allegation of commission of the offences of contempt of Court as stipulated in S.195 of the CrPC and upon such filing of complaint, the Court concerns, where ... Upon perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it appears that an application under S.340 of the CrPC should be filed in the Court where original proce....
with the Application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. ... Owing to the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the rejection of Application under Section 340 (1) of Cr. P. ... preferred under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code exclusively on its own merit by holding enquiry limited for the purposes of allegations contained in Section 340 Application. ... The matter would be remitte....
, the plaintiff has to burden High Court under section 340(3) of Cr.P.C. for decision of this application. ... filed u/s. 340(2) of CrPC and decide it in accordance with law, in the interest of justice; (D) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, by way of interim relief or ad ... It is submitted that another application Exh.70 was filed under section 340 of Cr.P.C. for fal....
The petitioner then insisted that his application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. be considered and decided before the final adjudication of the complaint filed by the respondent. ... In Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra), the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court has reiterated that normally the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is decided at the stage when the proceedings are concluded and the final judgment is rendere....
filed u/s 340 Cr.P.C., on that day, the aforesaid appeal was pending before the the case until such appeal is decided. ... Ramesh Panwar arisen out of the application filed u/s 340 Cr.P.C ... , admittedly, at the time of filing application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. on 11.08.2015, p style="position:absolute;white-space:pre;margin ... application, if any, is disposed of.
He will withdraw his application u/s 340 CrPC pending in family court, Khatima. (6) Parties have agreed that they will now file mutual divorce (13B HMA) in the Family court Khatima and parties have agreed that the agreed amount of Rs. (21,50,000/-) will be given as her for mutual divorce. (4) Jitenderpal Singh has also agreed to withdraw all the cases which he has files against Ms. Sharanjeet Kaur and her family members. (5) In the light of above both the parties with go for quashing of the Misc. application bearing no.384/2015 is pending in the High Court.
6. Learned counsel for the Corporation fairly submitted that in view of the legal provision, as enshrined under the Act, the authorities would consider the reply to the show cause as well as the undertaking filed by the petitioners. Learned counsel stated that a final decision will then be taken in the matter before ordering any precipitative action against the petitioners.
It is further stated that even otherwise on the basis of the averments made in the Application, the case is not made out under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge rejected the Application. It has been stated that the Court can take decision under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the time of final decision of the case.
The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of IQBAL SINGH MARWAH V. MEENAKSHI MARWAH (SUPRA) was dealing with a case where the complaint was filed by a party before the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate for prosecution of the other party on the ground that proceedings for probate had been filed by the other party before the court of the District Judge for probate of a Will which was forged and fabricated. Application filed under section 340 CrPC before the District Judge was still pending.
W. S. Application under section 340 Cr. P. C shall be decided at the final stage. "
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
