In an application in a suit filed before the Delhi High Court under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) for initiating perjury proceedings against defendant 1 for making false statements on oath, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad dismissed the application while holding that the same had been filed only to derail the Court and to harass defendant 1.
The main suit was filed for partition, rendition of accounts, and recovery of amounts due from the defendants to the plaintiffs. The parties were siblings whose father had died intestate on 28-04-2022. The petitioners and defendant 2 were the deceased’s daughters, whereas defendant 1 was the deceased’s son.
It was submitted that the deceased acquired various movable and immovable properties during his lifetime. The plaintiffs asserted that defendant 1 had misappropriated money from the suit properties and had filed the present suit seeking partition of all properties.
Upon asking as to why criminal proceedings under Section 340 were to be initiated against defendant 1, petitioner 1 answered the Court, saying that defendant 1 had deliberately given false statements in his pleadings, as well as the affidavits dated 03-09-2025 and 15-01-2026, intending to interfere with the administration of justice.
The Court observed that on 15-07-2025, defendant 1 was asked by this Court to file an affidavit disclosing all assets received by him upon the demise of his father, and the plaintiff was directed to file the Joint Schedule of Properties. Thereafter, plaintiff 1 filed an application stating that defendant 1 had failed to comply with the said order, as he had not disclosed the bank accounts and financial investments of the business. By an order dated 12-11-2025, defendant 1 was directed to file an additional affidavit disclosing the same.
The Court noted that by the present application, plaintiff 1 had challenged the correctness of the details mentioned in the affidavits and had pointed out certain contradictions between the affidavits as well as the material on record. The Court opined that the allegations, per se, could not attract Section 340, which prescribed the initiation of an inquiry into an offence under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC. The Court stated that the falsity of the statements in the affidavits would have to be established at trial, and opined that it was open to the plaintiffs to initiate Section 340 proceedings if such material surfaces during the trial.
Further, the Court observed that the parties have now adopted a practice of filing applications under Section 340 solely to arm-twist the other side and delay the trial. The Court did not impose costs on the applicant since they were appearing in person, and granted them liberty to file a Section 340 application in case material surfaced that offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 228, 463, 471, 475, or 476 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) had been committed attracting Section 195 of CrPC.
Lastly, while dismissing the application, the Court stated that the instant application had been filed only to derail the Court from proceeding further with the matter and to harass defendant 1.
Appearances:
For Plaintiffs – Party-in-person
For Defendants – Ms. Shruti Kapur
