Supreme Court quashes criminal case against litigant and lawyer over wrong statements in court pleadings

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside orders directing criminal prosecution of a litigant and his lawyer after lower courts found that they had made wrong statements in court pleadings filed in a civil property dispute [Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram v. Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar].

A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar held that the lower courts had applied the wrong legal standard. It held that, for the offences in question, prosecution could not be initiated merely because a person had made a wrong statement. Instead, the law requires a false statement.

The Court explained that a wrong statement may simply be the result of an inadvertent error or typographical mistake, whereas a false statement is one made deliberately to deceive or secure an undue advantage.

“There is a material difference between making a ‘wrong statement’ and ‘false statement’ in the context of Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code. A ‘wrong statement’ of fact may not always have the character of a ‘false statement’. While making of a ‘wrong statement’ may not fall within the ambit of Sections 199 and 200 of the Penal Code, a ‘false statement’ would qualify as relevant material for being considered as an offence under the said provisions,” the Court said.

The ruling came in an appeal filed by Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram (appellant) and his lawyer, who had been directed to face criminal prosecution after their legal opponents (respondents) alleged that they had made incorrect and false statements in an appeal memorandum and a stay application filed while challenging a trial court order.

The dispute arose from a civil suit in which the respondents were the plaintiffs. They sought to restrain the defendants from interfering with their enjoyment of the property, and the trial court granted an interim injunction restraining such interference.

During the pendency of the suit, Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram purchased the property from the original defendants and was impleaded as a defendant.

The trial court later held that the injunction had been breached and directed restoration of the earlier position at the site. Masram challenged that order before the appellate court, which granted a stay.

The respondents then alleged that Masram and his lawyer had secured the stay by making incorrect statements in the memorandum of appeal and the accompanying stay application. They pointed out that the pleadings described an earlier writ petition as having been "dismissed" when it had actually been "disposed of." They also alleged that the omission of the word "not" in one paragraph of the stay application materially altered its meaning.

Although the Bombay High Court declined to initiate contempt proceedings, it granted the respondents liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This provision lays down the procedure for a court to initiate prosecution for certain offences affecting the administration of justice, such as perjury or fabricating false evidence.

Acting on that liberty, a complaint was filed, and an appellate court directed prosecution of Masram and his lawyer under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellate court held that there was a prima facie case made out as Masaram and his lawyer had made "wrong statements" in the appeal and the stay application.

The Bombay High Court upheld that order, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, Masram and his lawyer argued that the disputed statements were typographical errors rather than deliberate falsehoods. They pointed out that they had moved an application seeking correction of the mistakes in the memorandum of appeal and the stay application several months before the respondents invoked Section 340 CrPC.

The Court accepted the explanation. It observed that inadvertent or typographical mistakes could amount to wrong statements but not false statements. It held that the appellate court had directed prosecution without recording a prima facie finding that the appellants had made false statements, which was essential for the offences alleged.

It further found that the High Court had erred in effectively improving the appellate court's order in some respects.

"The court of first instance having prima facie found that it was a case of making ‘wrong statements’, the High Court went on to record a finding that the appellants had in fact filed a false affidavit. Further, the High Court also recorded a finding as to the expediency of filing a complaint in the interests of justice. This finding was absent in the original order. The High Court has, thus, proceeded to improve the impugned order in an appeal preferred by the appellants, who were in fact aggrieved by the same. Such course is not permissible in law," the Court said.

Thus, the Court quashed the orders directing the prosecution of Masram and his lawyer under Sections 193, 199 and 200 of the IPC.

[Read judgment]