Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with procedure in cases mentioned in section 195. When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relati The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court.
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.
Section 340, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 379 Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215 Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-3.pdf 2005-03-11 DATE VERIFIED. 5-judge Constitution Bench (Lahoti CJI; Mathur J. for the Court). Crl A 402/2005. Skip same-date concurrence/ROP. CrPC 195(1)(b)(ii) bars a private complaint only when the forgery is committed after the document is produced in court (custodia legis). Pre-production forgery is prosecutable on a private complaint. s.340 is the procedure when the bar applies. Map crpc 195 and 340; BNSS 215/379 as successors. Do not pad IPC 193.
On this section: s.340 is the procedure for a court complaint when s.195(1)(b) applies. The court acts only if it is expedient in the interest of justice; it is not a mandatory private-prosecution ouster for pre-production forgery (Iqbal Singh Marwah).
-
Sasikala Pushpa vs The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A clerical error or incorrect statement regarding date and place in a procedural document like a vakalatnama, where the party admits to the genuine signatures and provides a plausible explanation for the error, does not constitute forgery or fraud upon the court warranting criminal prosecution under Sections 193, 466, 468, and 471 IPC. Fraud requires mens rea (criminal intention) to deceive and cause wrongful gain or loss. Before exercising jurisdiction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. to direct a criminal complaint, the court must be satisfied that it is 'expedient in the interest of justice' by weighing the effect on administration of justice, not merely the injury to a person. A mere incorrect statement in a procedural document that has no bearing on the merits of the case and causes no demonstrable harm to the administration of justice does not justify criminal prosecution.
On this section: Court's power to direct investigation into offences affecting administration of justice; central issue in the case
-
National Lawyers Campaign for Judicial Transparency and Reforms Joint Secretary vs The Bar Council of India Chairman
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a party makes averments in court proceedings on the advice of its counsel, and subsequently tenders an unconditional apology, an application to initiate criminal proceedings under Section 340 CRPC read with Section 195 CRPC should be rejected, provided the court is satisfied that the averments were indeed made on legal advice as evidenced in the court's orders in the main matter.
On this section: Section 340 CRPC provides for initiation of criminal proceedings against a person who makes false statements in court. The court declined to initiate such proceedings, finding that the statements were made on legal advice and an unconditional apology was tendered.
-
Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Antar Singh Darbar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. It must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even after such position has emerged, the court has to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and offences against public justice as referred in Section 340(1) of the CrPC, having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a prosecution. The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts of the case.
On this section: Court's power to direct investigation into offences of false evidence and offences against public justice. The Court held that mere satisfaction is not enough; the court must form an opinion that such inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice.
-
Shri Kailash Vijayvargiya vs Antar Singh Darbar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Mere allegations of contradictory statements, factual errors in description of parties, or absence from notary signing procedures do not constitute sufficient grounds for initiating a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 CrPC into alleged false evidence and perjury. A court must form a definite opinion that the inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice, taking into account the overall factual matrix, the probable consequences of prosecution, and the requirement that the defendant must have intentionally given a false statement or deliberately fabricated evidence. The absence of such satisfaction renders the direction to initiate inquiry invalid and requires remand for fresh consideration.
On this section: Court applied Section 340 CrPC standard for initiating inquiry into alleged false evidence - held that mere allegation insufficient without satisfaction that inquiry is expedient in interests of justice. Court emphasized that overall factual matrix and probable consequences must be considered.
-
Kaushik Chaterjee vs State of Haryana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The question of territorial jurisdiction in criminal proceedings is a question of fact that must be established through evidence and cannot be decided at the transfer petition stage. The trial court, not the Supreme Court, is the appropriate forum to decide jurisdictional issues after evidence is led on the place of commission of the offence and other relevant factors enumerated in Sections 177 to 184 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, transfer petitions seeking transfer on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction must be dismissed, leaving it open to the parties to raise and have the trial court decide the jurisdictional issue during the trial.
On this section: Petitioner filed an application under this section seeking prosecution of officials of the finance company for allegedly committing perjury by claiming the company had an office in Gurugram.
-
Meenakshi Lekhi vs Rahul Gandhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court's core ratio appears to center on the threshold requirements for criminal contempt jurisdiction and the scrutiny required before entertaining review petitions and applications for initiating criminal proceedings against parties. The court distinguished between legitimate criticism and contempt of court, and established that not all allegations or disputes constitute grounds for contempt proceedings or criminal prosecution.
On this section: Application pertaining to initiation of criminal proceedings for making false or frivolous allegations in court
-
Avishek Raja vs Sanjay Gupta
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The bench could not complete hearing on the contempt matters on 10-01-2017 and determined that further hearing was necessary to properly adjudicate the complex issues involving 71 consolidated contempt petitions spanning multiple media organizations and journalists; court fixed 17-01-2017 for resumed hearing.
On this section: Application for treatment of contempt of court proceedings under criminal procedure rules; authority to prosecute contempt as criminal matter
-
Jijimon K.M. vs State Of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a deponent in a judicial proceeding, particularly a police officer who is a party to the suit, is fully aware that disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed in connection with the very incident that is subject matter of the suit are highly relevant to the case, and such deponent deliberately denies the existence of such punishment when specifically questioned during cross-examination, knowing such denial to be false, a prima facie case is made out for investigating alleged false evidence under Section 193 IPC. It is expedient in the interests of justice to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC in such circumstances, as the false evidence goes to the credibility and integrity of the witness and the administration of justice itself.
On this section: Procedure for court to make complaint for offences in relation to proceedings in that court; core provision governing this case
-
Mohan Lal Jatia vs Registrar General
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A complaint filed by the Registrar General of the Supreme Court under Section 340 Cr.P.C. must be treated as if instituted on a police report in accordance with Section 343(1) Cr.P.C., notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter XV relating to complaint cases. Consequently, the trial shall proceed as a warrant trial case on a police report, and pre-charge evidence recording is not required when the investigating agency (CBI) has already completed its investigation and material is available on record. The procedure under Sections 245 and 246 Cr.P.C. (applicable to warrant trial cases on complaint) does not apply to such cases.
On this section: Provides authority for courts to direct prosecution of persons committing offences affecting administration of justice; forms the basis for the complaint filed by Registrar General
-
Chalitar Rai vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a specific statutory remedy is available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (such as Section 341 Cr.P.C. for appealing against rejection of a complaint under Section 340), the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked to bypass that remedy. The petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedy by appealing to the subordinate court hierarchy before seeking High Court intervention.
On this section: Power of courts to lodge complaints against witnesses for giving false evidence or producing forged documents. The trial court rejected the petitioner's application under this section.
-
Hemant Saxena vs State of Rajasthan through P.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A revisional court must hear all parties and consider all material submissions, including counter-complaints filed under Section 340 CrPC, before deciding a revision petition. Failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice and renders the order procedurally defective and liable to be set aside by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
On this section: Petitioner filed a complaint under this section against three persons including the complainant for making false statements in court; the revisional court failed to consider this complaint before deciding the revision petition
-
Nilanjan Gupta vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An appellate court may set aside specific directions in a lower court order (such as directions for criminal prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C. or costs awards) when the appellant withdraws his challenge to the order on merits and the respondent consents to such modification, provided the modification does not undermine the substantive relief granted in the original order.
On this section: Section 340 Cr.P.C. empowers courts to direct investigation or prosecution for perjury or false evidence. The court set aside the direction to file a complaint under this section, indicating that the alleged false statement did not warrant criminal prosecution in the circumstances of the case.
-
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Sat Kamal Pathak
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint for perjury and false prosecution is filed after a malicious FIR has been quashed by the High Court, the limitation period for such complaint should be computed from the date of quashing of the FIR, not from the date of its registration. The cause of action arises when the false allegations are judicially determined to be baseless. Additionally, when multiple offences are charged together, the limitation period is determined with reference to the offence punishable with the most severe punishment, and the trial court must consider the substantive merits of the complaint before dismissing it on limitation grounds alone.
On this section: Procedure for complaint of perjury. The petitioner filed complaint under this section against respondents for committing perjury.
-
David John vs State of Kerala
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a witness is prosecuted for perjury under Section 193 IPC following a trial, and an appeal is pending against the decision in the main judicial proceeding (filed by parties to the main case, not by the witness under Section 341 CrPC), the trial court must stay the perjury proceedings until the appellate court disposes of the appeal. This is because the appellate court may accept the witness's testimony as truthful, and allowing the perjury conviction to proceed would create an anomalous situation where the witness is convicted for perjury despite the higher court finding their testimony credible. Section 343(2) CrPC provides the legal basis for such adjournment.
On this section: Provides procedure for preliminary enquiry before prosecuting a witness for perjury; cited as the basis for initiating perjury proceedings
-
Court on Its Own Motion vs Mulakh Raj
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When conduct of a police officer during investigation prima-facie constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (such as fabricating false evidence under Sections 192-195 IPC), and specific procedures exist in the Criminal Procedure Code for addressing such conduct (Sections 340, 345, 346, 348), the High Court should exercise restraint and not invoke its contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The proviso to Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act bars High Court jurisdiction when the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under IPC. Contempt proceedings should be initiated only when there is real prejudice constituting substantial interference with the due course of justice, and not as an omnibus remedy for every wrong affecting judicial proceedings.
On this section: Procedure for initiating proceedings for offences against public justice and provisions for discharge on apology
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… In the said proceedings, the petitioner moved an application on 27th April, 2007 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch interalia contending that in view of the provisions of Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Hereinafter, "CrPC"); the learned Magistrate had no power to take cognizance of the case. By the order dated 25th May, 2007, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch rejected the application. The petitioner carried the matter in revision before the learned Additional Sessions …
Questions about Section 340
What have the courts held on Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (11 Mar 2005) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.340 is the procedure for a court complaint when s.195(1)(b) applies. The court acts only if it is expedient in the interest of justice; it is not a mandatory private-prosecution ouster for pre-production forgery (Iqbal Singh Marwah). Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 8 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 340, section 340 CRPC, section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah (11 Mar 2005).
What should I read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 195 (Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, foroffences against public justice and for offences relating to documentsgiven in evidence), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 5 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 379 (Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 340, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.