Trial Court Must Decide Veracity Of Statements In Civil Pleadings: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Over Alleged False Statement In Suit

The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR registered against the appellants based on alleged false statements made in a written statement before a civil court, holding that it is for the trial court to determine the truthfulness of such claims.

The Court was hearing an appeal against a High Court order that had refused to quash the FIR under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The FIR was registered pursuant to a direction by a Magistrate following an application under Section 156(3) CrPC. The allegations stemmed from a Suit in which the appellants had denied the existence of a family settlement and their signatures on it. The FIR was registered under Sections 120B, 191, 193, 203, 207, 404, 406, 418 and 420 of the IPC.

The Bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice SVN Bhatti held, "Whether a statement made in the written statement is incorrect or false has to be considered and decided by the trial Court itself upon the conclusion of the evidence, at the time of the final determination of the suit or, if necessary, in proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. Unless the aforesaid exercise is completed, it is difficult to say that the averments made therein are false and constitutes an offence attracting penal action."

AOR Vinod Sharma appeared for the Petitioner, while AORs Nishanth Patil and Rishi Matoliy appeared for the Respondent.

Challenging the FIR, the appellants contended that if any statement made in their written submission or affidavit was incorrect or false, it was within the civil court's jurisdiction to determine the same. They argued that the appropriate legal recourse in such cases would be through proceedings under Section 340 CrPC, which deals with perjury and false evidence.

Agreeing with this contention, the Court observed that whether statements made in a written statement are false can only be decided by the trial court upon the conclusion of evidence.

The Court found that the registration of the FIR at this stage was “completely misconceived” and thus set aside the High Court’s order. The quashing petition under Section 482 CrPC was allowed and the FIR was quashed.

However, the Court clarified that the respondent was free to explore other legal remedies available under the law.

About the Appeal

The dispute arose from a Civil Suit pending before the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Ladnun, regarding the partition of a 1020 sq. yard property. The petitioner, in his written statement, denied the existence of a family settlement and his signatures on it. Subsequently, Respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, seeking registration of an FIR against the petitioners, alleging that they had made false statements before the civil court.

The Magistrate allowed the application, leading to the registration of an FIR under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy), 191 (giving false evidence), 193 (false evidence in judicial proceedings), 203 (giving false information), 207 (fraudulent claim in court), 404 (dishonest misappropriation), 406 (criminal breach of trust), 418 (cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue), and 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property).

Challenging the FIR, the petitioners moved the Rajasthan High Court under Section 482 CrPC, arguing that the case was purely civil in nature and that Respondent No. 2 had maliciously given it a criminal color. However, the High Court refused to quash the FIR and instead granted the petitioners liberty to approach the Superintendent of Police and the Investigating Officer with relevant documents, while directing the police to complete the investigation within two weeks.

Cause Title: Ramchandra & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. [CRL. A. NO. 1478 OF 2025]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocates Gaurav Kumar, Rajat Kumar, Naman Sherstra, Devesh Kumar, Vinod Sharma (AOR)

Respondent: Advocates Nishanth Patil (AOR), Anil Kumar, Ravi Bhushan, H. D. Thanvi, Nikhil Kumar Singh, Achal Singh Bule, Rishi Matoliy (AOR)

Click here to read/download the Order