The Court of law are meant to deliver justice and therefore, the parties are under obligation to approach the Court with clean hands and always spell the truth. Thus, the pleadings of the parties plays an important role and act as foundation of trail. Order 6 Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cast duty on the litigant to verify the facts of the pleading. The statutory provision for verification is to fix responsibility on the party for the statement made in the pleadings and to prevent false pleadings. If the pleadings are false, the person who verifies it come under the scanner of law for committing perjury because the false averments is not only vitiates the probity of judicial proceeding but also waste the precious judicial time.

Where the Court finds that a litigant is using the courts as a Forum on the basis of false claim or defence and trying to perpetuatethe illegalities, the Court can initiate action against such Party under Section 340 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for the offences of giving false evidence and offences against public justice as provided under Chapter XI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 340 of Cr.P.C provides that, if the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred in Clause (b) of Sub-Section 1 of Section 195 of the I.P.C which appears to have been committed in relation to a Court proceeding or a false evidence is produced before the Court during the proceedings then the Court after preliminary inquiry initiate the proceedings by way of complaint before the Magistrate. Section 340 of Cr.P.C reads as under:-

The preconditions for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C are as under:-

• Aprima facie case for a complaint for the purpose of inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 CrPC. On the basis of the material produced before the Court, and
• In the interests of justice it is expedient to hold an inquiry into the alleged offence.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.T.M.S Mohd. Vs. Union of India reported as (1992) 3 SCC 178 held that a contradictory statement made by a person in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always sufficient to justify a prosecution under IPC, but it must be shown that the person 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 if the aforesaid position exist still 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 and more specifically referred to in Section 340(1) 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.

In Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah reported as AIR 2005 SC 2119 a Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Examined the scope of Section 340 Cr.P.C and hels as under:-

“23. In view of the language used in Section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1) (b), as the section is conditioned by the words “court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice”. This shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the court may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the court by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon administration of justice. It is possible that such forged document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a very valuable property or status or the like, but such document may be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of administration of justice may be minimal. In such circumstances, the court may not consider it expedient in the interest of justice to make a complaint.”

The Court should record a finding that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made as a condition precedent for filing a complaint. In the case of Amarsang Nathaji Vs. Hardik Harshad Bhai Patel reported as 2016 SCC Online SC 1316 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that if the Court is of prima facie opinion that the offence is made out that there is no need of holding inquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pritish Vs. State of Maharashtra reported as (2002) 1 SCC 253has observed that in the process of formation of opinion by the court that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into, the requirement should only be to have a prima facie satisfaction of the offence which appears to have been committed. It is open to the court to hold a preliminary inquiry though it is not mandatory. In case, the court is otherwise in a position to form such an opinion, that it appears to the court that an offence as referred to under Section 340 CrPC has been committed, the court may dispense with the preliminary inquiry. Even after forming an opinion as to the offence which appears to have been committed also, it is not mandatory that a complaint should be filed as a matter of course.

In the case of Vishal Kapoor Vs. Sonal Kapoor the Hon,ble Delhi High Court held that the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C should normally be decided at the final stage. However, if the court is of the opinion the offence of perjury is committed then they can proceed under 340 Cr.P.C without waiting the conclusion of trail.

The Court can proceed suomotu or on an application by anyone, even stranger to the proceeding under Section 340 Cr.P.Cas held in the case N. Natarajan Vs.B.K Subba Rao reported as 2003 SCC (Cri) 437 as the basic object is to eradicate the evil of perjuryand to restore the faith of common man on the legal system and to uphold the might of“ Satayamev Jayate”.