They Wanted Him Prosecuted For Lying. The Court Said Not Yet.
An appeal sought to overturn a refusal to start perjury proceedings over affidavits about a company's shareholding. The Division Bench dismissed it at the threshold.
The Court held that no case was made out warranting interference. The Single Judge had considered the material and taken the view that initiating proceedings under Section 340 CrPC was not warranted; the order merely holds that the stage for invoking Section 340 has not yet arisen, and the court retains the power to act later if material appears showing offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b). The appeal was dismissed in limine.
- ‘Not yet’ is not ‘never’. The refusal preserves the court's power to act if material emerges later.
- Section 340 is discretionary and staged, and an appellate court will not readily disturb the timing.
- Dismissed in limine — the appeal did not survive the threshold.
- Section 195(1)(b) frames what is covered, and the material has to point to those offences.
- Court
- High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
- Bench
- Justice HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY
- Citation
- FAO(OS) No. 60 of 2026
- Case
- FAO(OS) No. 60 of 2026
- Decided
- 22 August 2026
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed in limine
What was sought
The dispute concerned affidavits about the financial standing of a company and the inheritance of a 70 per cent shareholding under a Will of June 2021, with the respondent maintaining he had not inherited the company's assets directly.
The appellants wanted proceedings under Section 340 of the Code started over what had been said on affidavit. The Single Judge declined, and they appealed.
Why the appeal failed at the threshold
The Division Bench read the order under appeal as holding only that the stage for invoking Section 340 had not yet arisen — not that the court could never act.
The power remains available if material appears showing the commission of offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b) of the Code.
The Single Judge having considered the material placed before him and taken that view, the Court was of the considered opinion that no case was made out warranting interference, and dismissed the appeal in limine.
Who argued it
Appearances as recorded in the judgment of the Court.
Frequently asked
Can I appeal a refusal to start perjury proceedings?
You can, but the Delhi High Court dismissed such an appeal in limine, holding no case for interference was made out.
Does a refusal end the matter?
No. The order held only that the stage had not yet arisen; the power remains if material later shows offences under Section 195(1)(b).
Asking a court to start perjury proceedings
- Identify the specific statement and the document it appears in, rather than alleging dishonesty generally.
- Show the offence falls within Section 195(1)(b); that is what the court's power attaches to.
- Expect timing to be the answer. A refusal often means not yet, and the application can be renewed when the record is fuller.
- Think twice before appealing a refusal — this one was dismissed in limine.
Source. High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, FAO(OS) No. 60 of 2026, decided 22 August 2026 by Justice HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RENU BHATNAGAR, Justice HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK CHAUDHARY. This explainer is written from the judgment text as reported.
Claw tracks High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and 24 other High Courts, reads every order handed back, and surfaces the directions that carry a deadline. clawlaw.in