Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur considered a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 read with Section 104(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, arising from an order of the Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu dated 26.04.2024 in Civil Suit No.08/2019 (57/1991). The civil suit concerned validity of adoption of Laxman Singh and adoption deed dated 26.11.1983. During pendency, respondent-defendant Himmat Singh applied under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC to bring on record a certified copy of the adoption deed obtained from record of T.I. Case No.12/1984 arising out of Civil Suit No.23/1984, Ramdev Vs. Hukum Singh. The trial court allowed that application on 05.10.2023 and the document was exhibited as Ex.A34 during the evidence of Himmat Singh. The plaintiff-appellants then filed an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC alleging Ex.A34 forged and fabricated, pointing to discrepancies: General Index show Part-B ended at page B15 as one-page Vakalatnama, whereas Ex.A34 bore pages B15/1 and B15/2; General Index reflected 163 pages while summoned record contained 165 pages; certified copies of adoption deed from other records, Ex.1 in present suit and Ex.2 in Laxman Singh Vs. Hukum Singh, did not bear thumb impression of Rasal Kanwar, whereas Ex.A34 did. Trial court rejected the application observing that document had been permitted on record by order 05.10.2023, obtained from court record, exhibited, and no question regarding Ex.A34 was put to Himmat Singh in cross-examination. Before High Court, appellants argued discrepancies could not be brushed aside and absence of specific cross-examination not decisive. Respondents argued no case under Section 340, disputed genuineness to be adjudicated in substantive proceedings, and power only when expedient in interests of justice. The High Court first noted maintainability concluded by earlier order dated 26.11.2024 that an order under Section 340 CrPC by Civil Court is appealable as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. On merits, court examined scope of Section 340: it does not contemplate prosecution merely on allegation; requires reasonable foundation and expediency; not to be invoked for mere assertion corrected or dispute of genuineness. Relying on Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram & Anr. v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaiparkar & Anr., 2026 INSC 724, and Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370, court reiterated that ordinarily Section 340 complaint should not be directed during pendency of substantive proceedings absent exceptional circumstances. The court observed that discrepancies did create doubt but did not require Section 340 court to pronounce ultimate genuineness; issues connected with adoption deed were for trial court's appreciation of evidence. Consequently, no exceptional circumstances justified setting criminal law in motion before substantive dispute adjudicated. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Inquiry for Offences Affecting Administration of Justice - Scope and prerequisites under Section 340 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 340 read with Section 195 - Section 340 does not contemplate prosecution merely upon an allegation of false statement or false document; the court must be satisfied that the material furnishes a reasonable foundation for the alleged offence and that it is expedient in the interests of justice to hold an inquiry, and the provision is not to be invoked merely because an assertion is incorrect or a dispute regarding genuineness is raised. Held that the trial court correctly declined action in the absence of these prerequisites (Paras 10-11). B) Criminal Procedure - Pendency of Substantive Proceedings and Section 340 Inquiry - Normally no complaint during pendency unless exceptional circumstances - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 340 read with Section 195 - The Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah held that ordinarily a complaint under Section 340 should not be directed during the pendency of substantive proceedings; the principle was reiterated in Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram. The expression 'normally' means pendency is not an absolute bar but requires circumstances sufficiently exceptional to depart from the normal course. Held that the alleged discrepancies did not warrant the exceptional step of setting the criminal law in motion before the substantive dispute was adjudicated (Paras 12-13). C) Evidence - Disputed Genuineness of Document Exhibited in Civil Suit - Prima facie discrepancies not conclusive proof; ultimate issue for trial - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 104(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 340 - Discrepancies in pagination, General Index entries and thumb impression raised doubt about Ex.A34 but did not require the court in Section 340 proceedings to pronounce upon ultimate genuineness; those matters were connected with the pending adoption deed controversy and should be left for appreciation of evidence in the trial court. Held that no final opinion should be expressed in the present proceedings to avoid pre-empting an issue open before the trial Court (Paras 14-16). D) Civil Procedure - Maintainability of Appeal Against Section 340 Order - Order under Section 340 CrPC by Civil Court appealable as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 341; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 104(1) - The High Court vide order dated 26.11.2024 held that an order passed by a Civil Court on an application under Section 340 CrPC is amenable to appellate jurisdiction and the present appeal is maintainable as a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 104(1) CPC read with Section 341 CrPC; the issue therefore stood concluded. Held that the objection regarding maintainability did not survive for consideration (Para 8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in declining to initiate proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC in respect of Ex.A34 based on alleged discrepancies during pendency of substantive civil suit
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, holding that no exceptional circumstances justified initiating proceedings under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC during the pendency of the civil suit; the discrepancies pointed out by the appellants were matters to be adjudicated in the substantive trial, and the order dated 26.04.2024 rejecting the application was upheld.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC requires reasonable foundation and expediency in interests of justice
- not every false statement or disputed document warrants prosecution
- ordinarily no Section 340 complaint during pendency of substantive proceedings
- pendency not absolute bar but exceptional circumstances needed
- discrepancies in exhibited document are matters for trial
- not summary adjudication in Section 340 proceedings
- order under Section 340 CrPC by Civil Court appealable as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 104(1) CPC read with Section 341 CrPC
