Section 340 CrPC enquiry permits complaint on prima facie tampering and false affidavits when disputed documents are produced in court

On allegations of tampering, forged affidavits, and altered agreement documents, the Court treated Section 340 CrPC as requiring only a limited prima facie enquiry and consideration of whether prosecution was expedient in the interests of justice. On the forensic report and surrounding circumstances, it found prima facie erasure, substitution of figures and words, and false statements about addresses. The objection that the alleged forgery predated the proceedings did not bar action, because the disputed documents were produced in court and the false affidavits independently attracted the Court's power. A complaint was directed against the persons specifically implicated, while it was declined against the person for whom no specific allegation was made.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the facts disclosed and the forensic material on record, the Court should direct filing of a complaint under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for alleged forgery, tampering of documents, and false affidavits, and whether the objection based on prior forgery excluded the Court's power to act.

Analysis: The application was founded on allegations that the agreement to sell and receipt produced before the Court had been altered, that the plaintiff had filed false affidavits, and that the conduct of the parties had interfered with the administration of justice. The Court treated the inquiry under Section 340 as a limited preliminary enquiry directed to whether a prima facie case existed and whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate prosecution. Relying on the forensic report and the surrounding circumstances, the Court found prima facie tampering of the documents, visible erasure and substitution of figures and words, and false statements by the plaintiff regarding addresses. The objection that the alleged forgery occurred before the proceedings and therefore outside Section 340 was rejected, since the documents were produced in Court and the alleged false affidavits independently attracted the Court's power.

Conclusion: The application was allowed against Kuldeep Kapoor, Ashok Kapoor, and Girdhari Lal, and the Registrar was directed to file a complaint in accordance with law. The application was dismissed as against Ms. Priya Kapoor for want of specific allegations against her.

---