Inconsistent prosecutorial submissions do not by themselves amount to fabrication of evidence or justify Section 340 proceedings.

Section 340 CrPC was discussed as a mechanism the court may invoke in the interest of justice, and the text notes that initiation is not confined to a formal complaint by a party, so a stranger's locus standi was not treated as a bar to consideration. It also states that inconsistent or changing submissions by counsel or a public prosecutor during criminal proceedings do not, by themselves, amount to fabrication of evidence or an offence under Section 195 CrPC. On that reasoning, the complaint was described as misconceived because the alleged contradictory stands did not justify inquiry or prosecution under Section 340.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a stranger had locus standi to move an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether inconsistent or changing submissions made by a public prosecutor in the course of framing of charges could attract the offences contemplated by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and justify proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether a stranger had locus standi to move an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The court proceeded on the basis that even assuming a complaint could be presented by a person other than a direct party, the real question was whether the application disclosed a matter fit to be proceeded with. Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 enables the court to act in the interest of justice on a complaint or otherwise, and the initiation of action is not confined to a formal complaint by a party to the proceedings.

Conclusion: The objection on locus standi was not accepted as a ground to prevent consideration of the application.

Issue (ii): Whether inconsistent or changing submissions made by a public prosecutor in the course of framing of charges could attract the offences contemplated by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and justify proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: A counsel may take different stands at different stages of a case, and even an incorrect or later corrected submission does not amount to fabrication of evidence. The reasoning emphasized that public prosecutors must be free to act fearlessly and independently, and that inconsistent forensic positions, without more, do not constitute an offence falling within the bar of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complaint, viewed as a whole, did not disclose conduct warranting inquiry or prosecution under Section 340.

Conclusion: The alleged contradictory submissions did not amount to fabrication of evidence or any offence justifying proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was found misconceived, and the order issuing notice was set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Inconsistent submissions by counsel or a public prosecutor, even if mutually contradictory at different stages of a criminal proceeding, do not by themselves constitute fabrication of evidence or an offence attracting Section 340 proceedings unless the conduct independently satisfies the ingredients of a cognizable offence affecting the administration of justice.

---