Delhi High Court Flags Misuse of Perjury Pleas, Says Section 340 CrPC Being Used to Delay Trials

The Delhi High Court has cautioned against the increasing misuse of perjury proceedings, observing that applications under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are often being filed as a tactic to “arm-twist” opponents and delay trial proceedings rather than to address genuine cases of false evidence.

The bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while dismissing an application seeking initiation of perjury proceedings against a defendant in a family property dispute. The case arose out of a suit for partition and rendition of accounts among siblings following the death of their father.

During the proceedings, the plaintiffs had moved an application under Section 340 CrPC (corresponding to Section 379 of the BNSS) alleging that the defendant made false statements on oath and filed forged documents through affidavits concerning disclosure of inherited assets. The allegations were based on inconsistencies between the affidavits and other material placed on record.

However, the Court found that such contradictions, by themselves, do not meet the legal threshold required to initiate perjury proceedings. It emphasized that Section 340 CrPC is attracted only when the ingredients of offences specified under Section 195(1)(b) CrPC (Section 215 of the BNSS) are clearly made out.

“The Plaintiff No.1 has only pointed out at certain contradictions between the affidavits and the material on record. In the opinion of this Court, the allegations per se cannot attract the ingredients under Section 340 of the CrPC which prescribes for initiation of an inquiry into an offence under Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC. Section 195(1)(b) of the CrPC deals with prosecution of offences relating to documents given in evidence, i.e., the offences punishable under Sections 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 211, 228, 463, 471, 475, 476 of the IPC (corresponding to Sections 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 248, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341 and 342 of the BNS). In the opinion of this Court, these offences are not made out at this juncture,” the Court held.

The Bench further clarified that the truth or falsity of the statements made in the affidavits must be determined during the course of the ongoing trial. It noted that if substantive material emerges establishing deliberate falsehood or fabrication, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC at that stage.

“This Court is not inclined to initiate parallel proceedings one under Section 340 of the CrPC and one under the present suit for ascertaining the correctness or otherwise of the additional affidavits filed in this Court at this juncture,” it added.

Significantly, the Court expressed concern over an emerging litigation trend where such applications are used strategically to stall proceedings or exert undue pressure on the opposing party.

“This Court is observing that now a practice has been made by the parties of filing applications under Section 340 of the CrPC only with an idea of arm-twisting the other side or putting pressure and also to delay the trial…The instant application is filed only with an intent to derail this Court from proceeding further with the matter and also to harass the Defendant No. 1,” the Court remarked.

By dismissing the application, the High Court reinforced that perjury proceedings are serious in nature and must not be invoked casually or as a procedural weapon in civil disputes. The ruling underscores that courts must guard against abuse of process and ensure that criminal law mechanisms are not misused to derail adjudication on merits.

The main suit for partition and rendition of accounts will now be taken by the Court on August 4th.

Case Title: Nisha Chandola & Anr. v. Manoj Sharma and Anr.

Bench: Justice Subramonium Prasad

Date of Judgement: 24.03.2026