top of page

Section 340 CrPC to be resorted only in rare cases when it’s absolutely necessary

Section 340 CrPC to be resorted only in rare cases when it’s absolutely necessary

Prem Prakash Dabral Vs State and Ors

Delhi HC


CRL. M.A. 17199/2017 in TEST CAS. 40/2012

About/from the judgment:

The observation was made by the Delhi High Court while dealing with an application filed under Section 340, Cr.P.C


An application under Section 340, Cr.P.C was filed by Respondent in the Testamentary case, in a petition for probate of the registered Will. The said petition had been allowed, in favour of the Petitioner, by the Delhi High Court, whereby Petitioner had been granted Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.


Application claimed that the non-applicant Petitioner deliberately tried to mislead and cheat the Court by stating on oath the incorrect residential address of the deceased.


The applicant further contended that Petitioner has stated in the petition that no other suit or proceedings are pending before this court or any other court seeking administration of estate of the deceased. By doing so the Petitioner deliberately and intentionally gave false statement to conceal /suppress from the Hon’ble Court that he had filed RSA in the the High Court.


The non-applicant/Petitioner, in his reply to the application denied the allegations & justified non-disclosure of pendency of RFA by stating that the said proceedings have no bearing with the probate petition and both proceedings are distinct and separate from each other.


The court expounded that,


“It is settled law that, every case of falsehood proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. ought to be resorted to. It must be resorted to only in rare cases where it is absolutely necessary in the interest of justice.”


The bench observed that,


“In the present case, it cannot be said that the Petitioner deliberately concealed the pendency of RFA 190/2011 filed by TEST.CAS. 40/2012 Page 3 of 3 it or that he wrongly stated the place of residence of the deceased. Nothing has been brought out in evidence to suggest that the Petitioner has committed perjury which would require initiation of action under Sec. 340 Cr.P.C.”

Read the Judgment


Knowledge and content of about almost all their respective descriptions are borrowed from law-related blogs and websites, we, therefore, wish to give proper credit to all the respective law-related blogs and websites like LiveLaw, Bar and Bench, LatestLaws, PathLegal, FirstLaw, Lawctopus, IndianKanoon, Manupatra, LegallyIndia etc.. Many of the judgments are also taken from them websites of Hon'ble Supreme Court and other respective Hon'ble High Courts!