Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed an application filed by M/s New Era Fabrics Ltd. under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking initiation of criminal proceedings against Nikhilesh Keshrichand Jhaveri (Respondent No. 3) for allegedly giving false evidence. The background involves two suits concerning tenancy of suit premises in Mumbai: a first suit filed by twelve members of the Jhaveri family for possession and injunction, and a second eviction suit filed by Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. The petitioners had sought clubbing of the suits, which was initially opposed by Respondent Nos. 3-5 on the ground that the first suit was at an advanced stage while issues had not been framed in the second suit. The Supreme Court initially allowed clubbing, but later, on Respondent No. 3's application, recalled that order and dismissed the special leave petition. Subsequently, the applicant filed the present application alleging that Respondent No. 3 had made a false statement in his application that issues had not been framed in the second suit, when in fact issues had been framed on 03.04.2014. The Court noted that Respondent No. 3, in his rejoinder, admitted the error, explained that an application for recasting of issues was pending which caused confusion, and tendered an unconditional apology. The Court found the explanation reasonable and held that there was no deliberate intent to mislead the Court. Consequently, no prima facie case was made out for initiation of criminal proceedings, and the application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Perjury - Section 340 CrPC - Initiation of Proceedings - Applicant sought criminal proceedings against respondent for allegedly making false statements in an application regarding framing of issues in a suit - Court held that no prima facie case was made out as the respondent had explained the inadvertent error and tendered unconditional apology - Held that pendency of an application seeking recasting of issues could have caused confusion, and thus the error was not deliberate (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether criminal proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195(1)(b) CrPC should be initiated against Respondent No. 3 for allegedly making false statements in an application before the Supreme Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the application under Section 340 CrPC, holding that no prima facie case was made out against Respondent No. 3 for initiation of criminal proceedings.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC
- perjury
- false evidence
- inadvertent error
- unconditional apology
- prima facie case
Case Details
Interlocutory Application No. 111396 of 2018 in Miscellaneous Application No. 2757 of 2018 in Miscellaneous Application No. 782 of 2017 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12501 of 2017
Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, R. Subhash Reddy
Shri Vikas Singh (for applicant), Shri Amit Sibal (for respondent No. 3)
Deepak Chandrakant Jhaveri & Ors.
Johnson Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Application under Section 340 CrPC seeking initiation of criminal proceedings for false evidence.
Remedy Sought
Applicant sought institution of criminal proceedings against Respondent No. 3 for giving false evidence.
Filing Reason
Allegation that Respondent No. 3 made incorrect statements in an application regarding the stage of a suit to mislead the court.
Previous Decisions
The Supreme Court had earlier allowed clubbing of suits, then recalled that order on Respondent No. 3's application, and dismissed the special leave petition.
Issues
Whether Respondent No. 3 made false statements with intent to mislead the court.
Whether a prima facie case for perjury under Section 340 CrPC is made out.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicant argued that Respondent No. 3 deliberately stated that issues had not been framed in the second suit, which was factually incorrect, amounting to perjury.
Respondent No. 3 argued that the error was inadvertent due to pendency of an application for recasting of issues, and tendered unconditional apology.
Ratio Decidendi
For initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, there must be a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood with intent to mislead the court. An inadvertent error explained by circumstances and accompanied by an unconditional apology does not warrant criminal prosecution.
Judgment Excerpts
We find that the rejoinder filed by Respondent No. 3 contained a clear admission to the effect that in M.A. 782 of 2017, he had stated certain facts which were not accurate.
In light of this, it would be difficult to conclude that Respondent No. 3 had deliberately tried to mislead this Court to obtain a favourable finding or order, more particularly when Respondent No. 3 has tendered an unconditional apology in his rejoinder.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no prima facie case is made out against Respondent No. 3 requiring initiation of criminal proceedings against him.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed SLP (Civil) No. 12501/2017 against the High Court order dismissing their application for clubbing suits. The Supreme Court initially allowed clubbing on 04.05.2017. Respondent No. 3 filed M.A. No. 782 of 2017 seeking modification, which was allowed on 12.01.2018, recalling the earlier order and restoring the SLP. The SLP was then dismissed. On 07.08.2018, the applicant filed the present application under Section 340 CrPC.
Acts & Sections
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC): 340, 195(1)(b)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): 24
