Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a civil suit filed by the respondents against the predecessor-in-title of the first appellant, seeking to restrain obstruction to property enjoyment. The trial court granted a temporary injunction on 03.04.2001. The defendants appealed. Meanwhile, the first appellant purchased the suit property. The respondents filed an application under Section 340 CrPC alleging that the appellants made false statements in their pleadings. The trial court directed filing of a complaint against the appellants and their counsel for offences under Sections 193, 199, 200 IPC. The High Court upheld this order. The Supreme Court considered whether a prima facie satisfaction of wrong statements in pleadings prepared by counsel justifies prosecution under Section 340 CrPC. The Court held that Section 340 CrPC requires a proper inquiry and a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint. Mere prima facie satisfaction is insufficient. Additionally, a counsel cannot be prosecuted for pleadings prepared on client instructions without independent mens rea. The Court set aside the orders of the trial court and High Court, quashing the direction to file complaint.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Section 340 CrPC - Complaint for Perjury - Prima Facie Satisfaction - The court held that a mere prima facie satisfaction that 'wrong statements' were made in pleadings is insufficient to direct filing of a complaint under Section 340 CrPC; a proper inquiry and finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice is required. (Paras 1, 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Sections 193, 199, 200 IPC - False Statements in Pleadings - Liability of Counsel - The court held that a counsel who prepares pleadings on instructions of the client cannot be prosecuted for false statements unless there is independent evidence of mens rea or knowledge of falsity. (Paras 16-18) C) Criminal Procedure - Section 340 CrPC - Inquiry Requirement - The court emphasized that before directing filing of a complaint, the court must conduct an inquiry and record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so, and not merely rely on a prima facie view. (Paras 10-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether on the basis of a prima facie satisfaction that 'wrong statements' were made by a party in his pleadings that were prepared by his counsel, power under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could have been exercised for directing filing of a complaint against both of them for the offence punishable under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the trial court and High Court, and quashed the direction to file complaint under Section 340 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC requires a proper inquiry and finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice to file a complaint
- mere prima facie satisfaction is insufficient
- Counsel cannot be prosecuted for pleadings prepared on instructions of client without independent mens rea
