Uttarakhand High Court
30 July vs Pramod Kumar on 30 July, 2026
UKHC010127342026
2026:UHC:6618
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Case No. 5 of 2026
30 July, 2026
Mukul Kumar
--Petitioner
Versus
Pramod Kumar
2: Karamveer Singh
3: Pankaj Kumar
4: Gautam Kumar
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr.Saurabh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant.
———————————————————————-
Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)By means of the present criminal misc.
application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure read with Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as
“BNSS, 2023”), read with Section 252 of the BNSS the
applicant has sought the following reliefs:-
” 1- Record a finding to the effect that the proposed accused (petitioner no
1 to 4 of the writ petition) have knowingly and wilfully made false statements
on oath, suppressed material facts regarding the pendency of parallel
proceedings, and filed a false affidavit in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1345 of
2025;
2- Conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (or relevant provisions of the BNSS) into the offences1
UKHC0101273420262026:UHC:6618
committed by the proposed accused(petitioner no 1 to 4) under Sections 191,
192, 193, 199, and 209 of the Indian Penal Code;
3- Direct the Registrar (Judicial) or any other authorized officer of this
Hon’ble Court to file a formal written complaint against the Respondents
(Proposed Accused) before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate of competent
jurisdiction;
4- Impose exemplary and heavy costs upon the proposed accused(petitioner
no 1 to 4) for flagrantly abusing the process of law, wilfully suppressing
material facts, wasting the precious time of this Hon’ble Court, and causing
severe mental and financial agony to the Applicant;”
2. Before proceeding further, it needs to be stated
that by virtue of provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C.
corresponding to Section 379 of BNSS, the Court before
whom such an application is filed is to make a
preliminary inquiry.
3. Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C. is being extracted
hereinbelow for ready reference:
Section 340 (1) of Cr.P.C.
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;
1. record a finding to that effect;
2. make a complaint thereof in writing;
3. send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
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
5. bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such
Magistrate.
4. Thus, in view of the provisions of Section 340
2
UKHC010127342026
2026:UHC:6618
Cr.P.C., the Court proceeds to make a preliminary
inquiry for its satisfaction whether in the present case
provisions of Section 340 can be invoked or not.
Reference for adopting the procedure of preliminary
inquiry is found in the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Pritish vs. State of Maharashtra
and others reported in 2002(1) SCC 253. Relevant
para no. 9 and 10 thereof are extracted hereunder for
ready reference:-
“9. Reading of the sub-section makes it clear that the hub
of this provision is formation of an opinion by the court
(before which proceedings were to be held) that it is
expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should
be made into an offence which appears to have been
committed. In order to form such opinion the court is
empowered to hold a preliminary inquiry. It is not
peremptory that such preliminary inquiry should be held.
Even without such preliminary inquiry the court can form
such an opinion when it appears to the court that an
offence has been committed in relation to a proceeding in
that court. It is important to notice that even when the
court forms such an opinion it is not mandatory that the
court should make a complaint. This sub-section has
conferred a power on the court to do so. It does not mean
that the court should, as a matter of course, make a
complaint. But once the court decides to do so, then the
court should make a finding to the effect that on the fact
situation it is expedient in the interest of justice that the
offence should further be probed into. If the court finds it
necessary to conduct a preliminary inquiry to reach such
a finding it is always open to the court to do so, though
absence of any such preliminary inquiry would not vitiate
a finding reached by the court regarding its opinion. It
should again be remembered that the preliminary inquiry
contemplated in the sub-section is not for finding whether
any particular person is guilty or not. Far from that, the
purpose of preliminary inquiry, even if the court opts to
conduct it, is only to decide whether it is expedient in the
interest of justice to inquire into the offence which appears
to have been committed.
10. Inquiry is defined in Section 2(g) of the Code as every
inquiry, other than a trial, conducted under this Code by a
magistrate or court. It refers to the pre trial inquiry, and in3
UKHC0101273420262026:UHC:6618
the present context it means the inquiry to be conducted
by the magistrate. Once the court which forms an opinion,
whether it is after conducting the preliminary inquiry or
not, that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an
inquiry should be made into any offence the said court has
to make a complaint in writing to the magistrate of first
class concerned. As the offences involved are all falling
within the purview of warrant case [as defined in Sec.2 (x)]
of the Code the magistrate concerned has to follow the
procedure prescribed in Chapter XIX of the Code. In this
context we may point out that Section 343 of the Code
specifies that the magistrate to whom the complaint is
made under Section 340 shall proceed to deal with the
case as if it were instituted on a police report. That being
the position, the magistrate on receiving the complaint
shall proceed under Section 238 to Section 243 of the
Code.”
5. Reference also needs to be made to a judgment
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which clarifies the
procedure in the case of State of Punjab vs. Jasbir
Singh reported in 2022 SCC online SC 1240. Relevant
para nos. 1, 9, 10 and 11 thereof are being extracted
hereunder for ready reference:-
“1. The matter has been placed before a three Judges
Bench arising from a reference made vide order dated
26.02.2020 seeking the following questions to be
answered:
“(i) Whether Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure,
1973 mandates a preliminary inquiry and an
opportunity of hearing to the would-be accused before
a complaint is made under Section 195 of the Code by
a Court?
(ii) what is the scope and ambit of such preliminary
inquiry?”
9. We have little doubt that there is no question of
opportunity of hearing in a scenario of this nature and we
say nothing else but that a law as enunciated by the
Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah‘s case (supra) is
in line with what was observed in Pritish’case (supra).
10. Interestingly both the judgments in Pritish‘s case and
the Constitution Bench judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah’s
case (supra) have not been noted in order passed in Sharad
4
UKHC010127342026
2026:UHC:6618
Pawar’s Case (supra). The answer thus to the first question
raised would be in the negative.
11. Insofar as the second question is concerned, the scope
and ambit of such a preliminary inquiry, also stands
resolved in terms of the Constitution Bench judgment of
this Court in the Iqbal Singh Marwah‘s case (supra) as
referred to aforesaid.”
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has
referred to paragraph nos.7, 15, 19 and 21 of the said
Criminal Misc. Application. Para 7, 15, 19 and 21 are
quoted hereunder: –
7. That the proposed accused(petitioner no 1 to 4) committed a grave
fraud upon the Hon’ble High Court by deliberately suppressing the
material fact that they had already invoked the jurisdiction of the Trial
Court by filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC on
24.04.2025 to set aside the ex parte decree. While the said application
was actively pending, the Respondents filed the Writ Petition on the very
same grounds, specifically stating in Paragraph 18 that “there is no any
other alternative and efficacious remedy available.” This statement is a
documented lie, as verified by the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment dated
09.05.2025. The proposed accused(petitioner no 1 to 4) wilfully withheld
this information to secure an interim stay by misleading the Court, which
is a direct interference with the administration of justice and squarely
falls within the ambit of Section 340 of the Cr.PC.
15. That the proposed accused (petitioner no 1 to 4) have made a
patently false statement on oath in Paragraph 18 of their Writ Petition,
declaring that ‘there is no any other alternative and efficacious remedy
available.’ This statement is a bold and documented lie, as the
Respondents had not only already exhausted their statutory remedy of
Revision under Section 333 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act but were also
simultaneously pursuing a Restoration Application under Order 9 Rule
13 of the CPC in the Trial Court (filed on 24.04.2025). The Respondents
knowingly verified a false affidavit to suggest a total lack of legal
recourse, solely to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Hon’ble
High Court under Article 227. Such a dishonest declaration made to gain
a jurisdictional advantage constitutes a clear offense of giving false
evidence.
19. That in light of the aforementioned facts and the documentary
evidence on record, a clear prima facie case of perjury and deliberate
fraud upon the Court is established against the Respondents (Proposed
Accused). The contradictions between their sworn statements in the Writ
Petition – specifically regarding the lack of knowledge of the suit and the
non-existence of alternative remedies-and the actual record of the Trial
Court and the Board of Revenue, are not mere errors but are calculated
5
UKHC010127342026
2026:UHC:6618
deceptions. It is a settled position of law that the sanctity of judicial
proceedings must be preserved, and no party should be allowed to use
the Court as a platform for transmitting falsehoods. Therefore, it is
‘expedient in the interest of justice’ that a preliminary inquiry be
conducted under Section 340 of the CrPC to safeguard the administration
of justice and to deter such blatant abuse of the legal process.
21. That while the proposed accused (petitioner no 1 to 4) maintained a
narrative of ‘zero notice’ before this Hon’ble Court, the judgment dated
09.05.2025 records that this claim was successfully disputed by the
Applicants’ count. The existence of the Respondents’ own pending
restoration application in the Trial Court proves they had active and prior
knowledge of the case status. Their attempt to project a total lack of
communication from the Trial Court was a strategic lie intended to create
a false aura of victimhood and procedural irregularity.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant would
submit that in the prior writ petition filed by the
respondents herein who are the petitioners of writ
petition no. 1345 of 2025 Pramod Kumar and others vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others, the respondents herein
(petitioners of the writ petition) have engaged in a
systematic pattern of suppression, false declarations, and
contradictory litigation. There exists a clear prima facie
case of perjury and abuse of the process of law and,
therefore, proceedings be initiated under Section 340 of
the Cr.P.C/379 of the BNSS. When query was made by
the learned counsel for the applicant as to in which paras
of the writ petition the falsehood and the perjury as
alleged has been committed by the respondents
herein/petitioners of the writ petition no. 1345 of 2025.
He would refer to para no. 15 and 18 thereof. Para no. 15
and 18 of writ petition no. 1345 of 2025 Pramod Kumar
6
UKHC010127342026
2026:UHC:6618
and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others are
extracted hereunder:-
15- That the ex-parte order dated 07.02.2023 passed by Up-
ziladhikari/Assistant Collector Ist Class Roorkee, District Haridwar as
well as the judgment and order dated 21.04.2025 passed by Board of
Revenue are misconceived.
18- That there is no any other alternative and efficacious remedy
available to the petitioners except to approach this Hon’ble Court to
invoke its extra ordinary jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitutions
amongst other grounds.
8. Though, an attempt was made on behalf of the
learned counsel for the applicant that averments of para
no. 15 and 18 of the writ petition, are false and there is
suppression of material facts and that amounts to
perjury for invoking Section 340 of Cr.P.C, the perusal of
the said Paragraphs 15 and 18 of Writ Petition No. 1345
of 2025 reveals that there is no statement with regard to
any fact.
9. In Paragraph 15 of the writ petition, exception
has been taken to the orders passed by the Assistant
Collector 1st Class Roorkee and the order dated 21.04.
2025 passed by the Board of Revenue, as misconceived.
In Paragraph 18 of the writ petition it is pleaded that
there is no other alternative efficacious remedy available
to the petitioners except to approach this Court though
its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the
Constitution.
7
UKHC010127342026
2026:UHC:6618
10. After having made a preliminary inquiry and
after going through the record, it is evident that the
averments as made in Paragraph 15 and 18 of the writ
petition (WPMS No. 1345 of 2025) explicitly do not reveal
that any false or misleading, statement was made nor
there is any concealment of fact.
11. It is also borne out from the record that the
writ petition (WPMS No. 1345 of 2025) was decided vide
order dated 09.05.2025. At the time of hearing of the said
writ petition, the applicant herein–Mr. Mukul Kumar
(who was Respondent No. 3 in the said writ petition)–
was duly represented by his counsel. He was heard by
the Court and in fact, para no. 3 and para no. 5 of the
order dated 09.05.2025, are very relevant and are
extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
partition decree was passed ex-parte by the trial Court
without service of notice upon him. This submission,
however, is disputed by Mr. Sidhhartha Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents. He pointed out that
petitioner has filed an application for setting aside ex-parte
decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 24.04.2025, which is
still pending before the Assistant Collector, First Class,
Roorkee, District Haridwar.
5. Since petitioner has two remedies available to
him, one of which is by filing application under Order 9
Rule 13 CPC, therefore, order passed by Board of Revenue,
impugned by the petitioner, is of no relevance.”
12. Perusal of Paragraph no. 3 reveals when the
counsel for the petitioner of Writ Petition (WPMS No.
1345 of 2025) contended that partition decree was
passed ex- parte by the Trial Court without service of
notice upon him, the submission was disputed by the
8
UKHC010127342026
2026:UHC:6618
learned counsel appearing for the respondents (including
Respondent No. 3 therein, Mr. Mukul Kumar/the
applicant herein.)
13. In fact, counsel appearing on behalf of the
applicant herein (respondent no.3 in the writ petition)
pointed out that the petitioner of writ petition has filed an
application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 24.04.2025, which is still
pending before the Assistant Collector 1st Class Roorkee,
District Haridwar.
14. On the said submissions, the Court in
Paragraph no. 5 of the order dated 09.05.2025 has
categorically observed that since the petitioner has two
remedies available to him, one of which is by filing an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, therefore, the
order passed by the Board of Revenue impugned by the
petitioner, is of no relevance.
15. Thus, from the perusal of the averments made
in Paragraph 15 and 18 of WPMS No. 1345 of 2025, as
also the order dated 09.05.2025, it is abundantly clear
that there was no concealment or falsehood portrayed by
the petitioner therein.
16. At this juncture, it is also relevant to mention
the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
James Kunjwal vs. State of Uttarakhand & Another,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1943. In the said
judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after traversing
through a number of judgments on the aspect of Section
9
UKHC010127342026
2026:UHC:6618
340 of Cr.P.C., has laid down the conclusions in
Paragraph 16. Paragraph 16 of the said judgment is
being extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:-
“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.”
17. Inter alia, in Paragraph 16 of the said
judgment in the case of James Kunjwal (supra) the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that there should be
“deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance”; The
Court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable
foundation for the charge, with distinct evidence and not
mere suspicion; proceedings should be initiated in
exceptional circumstances, for instance, when a party
has perjured themselves to beneficial orders from the
Court.
18. In view of the aforesaid authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the
present set of circumstances wherein this Court is called
upon to invoke the powers under Section of 340 of the
Cr.P.C. it is evident that there is no deliberate falsehood
10
UKHC010127342026
2026:UHC:6618
on a matter of substance and there is no reasonable
foundation for the charge. There is also no exceptional
circumstance that the petitioners of Writ Petition (WPMS
No. 1345 of 2025) have perjured themselves to beneficial
orders from the Court.
19. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances since it is not borne out from record that
the petitioner of Writ Petition (WPMS No. 1345 of 2025)
has made any deliberate falsehood on a matter of
substance nor there is reasonable foundation for the
charge that the petitioners of Writ Petition (WPMS No.
1345 of 2025) have perjured themselves to beneficial
orders from the Court, hence, no case is made out for
invoking the provisions of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The
application is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed.
(Siddhartha Sah, J.)
30.07.2026
Nahid
11
