Limited Article 136 review of Section 340 CrPC complaints upheld; prima facie inquiry does not ermine guilt.

Article 136 interference with a High Court order under Section 340(1) CrPC directing a complaint for an offence under Section 193 IPC is limited to cases of manifest perversity, gross error, or patent injustice. The Court explained that Section 340(1) proceedings are only preliminary: they assess whether the materials disclose a prima facie case and whether prosecution is expedient in the interests of justice, without deciding guilt. The accused remains entitled to contest the charge in the criminal trial and prove innocence. Applying that standard, the High Court's order directing a complaint was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 with the High Court's order under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 directing a complaint for an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The Court held that proceedings under Section 340(1) are confined to deciding whether the materials before the court disclose a prima facie case for the specified offence and whether it is expedient in the interests of justice to direct prosecution. Such an order is made at a preliminary stage and does not determine guilt. The accused retains a full opportunity in the criminal trial to contest the charge and establish innocence. Interference under Article 136 is therefore warranted only where the High Court's view is manifestly perverse, grossly erroneous, or plainly unjust, and not merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The High Court's order directing a complaint was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

---