DILSHADversusDEVENDRA SHARMA

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 7892 of 2025

Dilshad
                                                            .....Revisionist(s)
                                   Versus

Devendra Sharma
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Revisionist(s)                     :    Suhail Bhardwaj
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                  :

Court No. - 89
                 HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the Revisionist and learned AGA for the
State and perused the record.

2. Present Criminal Revision has been preferred with the prayer to set
aside the judgment and order dated 19.02.2025 passed by Additional
District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Meerut in
Criminal Appeal No. 92 of 2024 under Section 341 Cr.P.C. (Dishad Vs.
Sevendra Sharma) by which Criminal Appeal has been dismissed and
order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the learned Judge (Small Causes Court)
in Civil Misc. Case No. 66 of 2024 (Dilshad Vs. Devendra Sharma)
rejecting the application under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. has been
confirmed.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the opposite party filed a civil suit bearing
Original Suit No. 36 of 2021 (Devendra Sharma vs. Dilshad) before the
Court of Judge (Small Causes Court), Meerut, for eviction and recovery
of arrears of rent. The said suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and
order dated 05.04.2023. Thereafter, the decree holder filed Execution
Case No. 5 of 2023 for execution of the aforesaid judgment and decree. In
the meantime, the judgment-debtor, i.e., the revisionist, filed an
application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. along with an application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 31.05.2023 before the trial court,
which was registered as Misc. Case No. 99 of 2023. Vide order dated
17.02.2025, the learned trial court condoned the delay, and consequently,
the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. was taken on record and
                                                        CRLR No. 7892 of 2025
                               2


proceeded with in the said Misc. Case. The decree holder, i.e., the
opposite party in the present revision, entered appearance in the aforesaid
Misc. Case and filed his objections. It is alleged that opposite party
concealed the fact regarding filing of Execution Suit No. 05 of 2023 in the
Court of Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut for execution of ex-party
order dated 05.04.2023. Feeling aggrieved by the said act, the revisionist
submitted an application under Section 195(1)(b) read with Section 340
Cr.P.C. against the opposite party which was rejected by the court of
Judge, Small Cause Court, Meerut vide order dated 10.04.2024.
Thereafter revisionist preferred an appeal against the order dated
10.04.2024, in the Court the Additional District and Sessions
Judge/Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Meertu in Criminal Appeal No. 92
of 2024 under Section 341 Cr.P.C. which was decided against the
revisionist on 19.02.2025. Hence the present revision.

4. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the revisionist that
both the cases i.e. the Misc. Case No. 99 of 2023 under Order IX Rule 13
C.P.C. for restoration of Original Suit and Execution Petition No. 5 of
2023 was pending before the Court but the decree holder neither informed
the Court in Misc. Case No. 99 of 2023 about the pendency of Execution
Petition and nor informed the Court in the Execution Petition about the
pendency of Misc. Case No. 99 of 2023 and by concealing these facts got
the Execution Petition executed which resulted in eviction of the
revisionist judgment-debtor. It is also contended that the decree holder
was bound to disclose the fact in both the petitions for the pendency of the
other petition but by his ill will, the decree holder has intentionally
concealed the fact and by misleading the Court got the ex-parte decree
executed. This fact of concealment amounts to giving false evidence
which is punishable under the Indian Penal Code and and offence is
required to be inquired by the Court under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the revisionist has contended that the opposite
party deliberately concealed material facts from the Court in order to
obtain a judgment in his favour. It is submitted that, in the execution
proceedings initiated for enforcement of an ex parte judgment and decree
passed by the Court of the Judge (Small Causes Court), Meerut, the
opposite party filed an affidavit and produced a document as part of the
                                                                CRLR No. 7892 of 2025
                                     3


court record containing false statements, thereby attracting the provisions
of Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is further argued that despite the aforesaid
concealment and false statements on record, the learned Judge, Small
Causes Court, Meerut, as well as the learned appellate court, failed to
consider these material aspects and proceeded to pass the impugned
orders, which are illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

6. Learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the revisionist and submitted that the
application moved by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the
Court of Judge (Small Causes Court), Meerut was wholly misconceived
and devoid of merit. It is further submitted that the learned trial court,
after due consideration of the material available on record, rightly rejected
the said application. The appeal preferred against the said order was also
dismissed by the learned appellate court upon lawful and proper
appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, and no illegality
or infirmity can be said to have been committed by the courts below.

7. I have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the materials available on record.

8. The power of preliminary inquiry is provided in Section 340 (1)
Cr.P.C. and it is considered apposite to reproduce the said section
hereinunder :-

     "(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any
     Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest 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;
                                                               CRLR No. 7892 of 2025
                                   4


            take sufficient security for the appearance for 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
            (d)      bind over any person to appear and give evidence
            before such Magistrate."

9. For the purpose of exercising power under Section 340 Cr.P.C., it has
been provided in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. as under:-

     "195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servant,
     for offences against public justice and for offences relating to
     documents given in evidence.

     (1) No Court shall take cognizance -

     (a) .........

     (b) (i)of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the
     Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both
     inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such
     offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any
     proceeding in any Court, or

     (ii)of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section
     471, section 475 or section 476 of the said Code, when such offence is
     alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or
     given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or

     (iii)of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the
     abetment of, any offence specified in sub-clause (i) or sub-clause (ii),

     [except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such officer of the
     Court as that Court may authorise in writing in this behalf, or of some
     other Court to which that Court is subordinate.] "

Offence mentioned in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. are contained in Chapter
XI of the I.P.C. with the heading of "False Evidence and Offences
Against Public Justice".

10. The facts, as alleged by the revisionist in his application under Section
                                                                 CRLR No. 7892 of 2025
                                     5


340 Cr.P.C., are that the decree holder, by concealing the fact of
pendency of another case, has given false evidence before the Court. In
this context, it becomes necessary to examine the meaning of the
expression “giving false evidence.” The circumstances constituting “false
evidence” are defined under Section 191 I.P.C., which reads as follows:—

     " 191. Giving false evidence.

     Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of
     law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon
     any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either
     knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give
     false evidence.

     Explanation1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section,
     whether it is made verbally or otherwise.

     Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting
     is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving
     false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not
     believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not
     know.

                                      Illustrations

        a. A, in support of a just claim which B has against Z for one
             thousand rupees, falsely swears on a trial that he heard Z admit the
             justice of B's claim. A has given false evidence.

        b. A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he believes
             a certain signature to be the handwriting of Z, when he does not
             believe it to be the handwriting of Z. Here A states that which he
             knows to be false, and therefore gives false evidence.

        c. A, knowing the general character of Z's handwriting, states that he
             believes a certain signature to be the handwriting of Z; A in good
             faith believing it to be so. Here A's statement is merely as to his
             belief, and is true as to his belief, and therefore, although the
                                                              CRLR No. 7892 of 2025
                                 6


          signature may not be the handwriting of Z, A has not given false
          evidence.

        d. A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he knows
          that Z was at a particular place on a particular day, not knowing
          anything upon the subject. A gives false evidence whether Z was at
          that place on the day named or not.

        e. A, an interpreter or translator, gives or certifies as a true
          interpretation or translation of a statement or document which he is
          bound by oath to interpret or translate truly, that which is not and
          which he does not believe to be a true interpretation or translation.
          A has given false evidence. "

11. A bare perusal of Section 191 I.P.C. shows that giving false evidence
can be said when a person who is legally bound by an oath or by an
expresses provision of law to state truth or being bound by law to make
declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false and
which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe it to be
true.

12. In the present case, there is nothing mentioned in the application
under Section 340 Cr.P.C. about any false statement given by the decree
holder. Mere not disclosing of pendency of execution petition or
restoration application may not amount to concealment of fact by the
decree holder.

13. A perusal of the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by the court of Judge,
Small Causes Court, Meerut shows that the learned trial court has passed
a detailed order and rejected the application filed under Section 340
Cr.P.C. with a finding that the non disclosure of fact does not comes
within the ambit of Section 340 Cr.P.C. Likewise, in the appeal preferred
against the order of the Judge, Small Causes Court, Meerut, the learned
Appellate Court has passed its judgment and order dated 19.02.2025 and
rejected the appeal by confirming the order dated 10.04.2024 passed by
the trial court relying on the case law James Kunjwal v. The State of
Uttarakhand and Another, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 1943.
                                                              CRLR No. 7892 of 2025
                                   7


14. In the case of James Kunjwal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has elaborately discussed the provisions relating to giving false evidence
as contemplated under Section 191 I.P.C., which is punishable under
Section 193 I.P.C., read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. While relying upon
several of its earlier judgments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said
decision, has made the following observations with regard to applications
under Section 193 of I.P.C.:—

     "15. The three essential factors which can be said to be sine qua non for
     the application of Section 193 IPC as held in Bhima Razu Prasad v. State
     Rep. by Deputy Supdt. of Police, CBI/SPE/ACU-II/(2021) 19 SCC 25 are
     :-

     (1) false statement made on oath or in affidavits;

     (2) that such statements be made in a judicial proceeding; or

     (3) such statement be made before an authority that has been
     expressly deemed to be a ‘Court’.

     16. What we may conclude from a perusal of the above-noticed judicial
     pronouncements is that:-

     (i) The Court should be of the prima facie opinion that there exists
     sufficient and reasonable ground to initiate proceedings against the
     person who has allegedly made a false statement(s);

     (ii) Such proceedings should be initiated when doing the same is
     “expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent” and not
     merely because of inaccuracy in statements that may be
     innocent/immaterial;

     (iii) There should be “deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”;

     (iv) The Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable foundation
     for the charge, with distinct evidence and not mere suspicion;

     (v) Proceedings should be initiated in exceptional circumstances, for
     instance, when a party has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from
     the Court. "

15. Thus, in light of the aforesaid case laws and the discussion made
hereinabove, it is clear that the allegations of giving false evidence
levelled by the revisionist in the application under Section 340 of the
Cr.P.C. do not fall within the ambit of “giving false evidence” as
                                                                                         CRLR No. 7892 of 2025
                                                                   8


                                    envisaged under Section 191 I.P.C.

                                    16. For the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered opinion
                                    that the criminal revision lacks merits and deserves to be dismissed.

                                    17. Instant criminal revision is hereby dismissed.




                                                                                 (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.)
                                    January 22, 2026
                                    Karan/ADY




Digitally signed by :-
KARAN KUMAR RAO
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad