[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Akash Ranka vs Sri. Ashok S. Dhariwal on 6 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
WP No. 284 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
R
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 284 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI AKASH RANKA
S/O LATE MAHAVEER RANKA
AGED 42 YEARS
NO.7, 30TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN
ROAD, 4TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 011
EMAIL. [email protected]
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAJADITHYA SADASIVAN, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI ASHOK S. DHARIWAL
S/O LATE SUGANCHAND DHARIWAL
AGED 71 YEARS
Digitally signed by NO.201, 2ND FLOOR, SHARVANI
NAGARAJA B M
Location: HIGH
PRIDE, MARKET ROAD, BEHIND
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
CANARA BANK, BASAVANAGUDI
BANGALORE - 560 004
EMAIL. [email protected]
2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PARAMESHWAR N. HEGDE, ADV., FOR R-1;
SRI T.P VIVEKANANDA, ADV., FOR R-2)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
WP No. 284 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO PLEASED TO MAKE A
COMPLAINT IN WRITING TO THE FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE
U/S 340 RT/W 195 Cr.PC FOR OFFENCES UNDER SEC 199 AND
209 IPC, COMMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT WHICH ARE
PUNISHABLE U/S 193 AND 209 OF IPC AND FOR SUCH OTHER
ORDER, DIRECTION AND DECLARATION AS THIS HONBLE
COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF
THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINAR HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned petition is filed under Section 340(2)
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C')
read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India to direct
the Registrar to make a complaint in writing to the I Class
Magistrate under Section 340 read with Section 195 of
Cr.P.C. for offences punishable under Sections 199 and
209 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC')
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
Petitioner has invoked Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. on
the ground that respondent has falsely instituted a suit in
O.S.No.4120/2022 suppressing the culmination of arbitral
process and dismissal of appeal under Section 37(2) of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The gist of the
complaint is that since respondent withdrew the suit,
petitioner had no occasion to initiate appropriate
proceedings under Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C. before the
City Civil Court alleging commission of offences affecting
the administration of justice. The petitioner contends that
while maintaining an application under Section 340(2) of
Cr.P.C., the civil Court became functus officio in view of
the withdrawal of the suit, consequently, petitioner was
deprived of the opportunity to move an application under
Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C. before the very Court in which
alleged suppression and abuse had occurred. On this
premise, petitioner maintains that the withdrawal of the
suit should not defeat his right to seek action for perjury
and suppression of material facts and therefore, the only
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
remedy left with petitioner is to approach this Court under
Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the
records.
4. The following points would arise for
consideration:
"(i) Whether an application under
Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. is maintainable and
can be entertained by this Court in respect of
offences alleged to have been committed in
O.S.No.4120/2022 notwithstanding the
subsequent withdrawal of the suit in which
offences are alleged to have occurred?
(ii) Whether the withdrawal of the suit
by the respondent renders the City Civil and
Sessions Judge functus officio so as to denude
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
of its jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under
Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C.?
(iii) What Order?"
Finding on Point No.(i) & (ii):
5. The petitioner's primary grievance is that
respondent had instituted a suit in O.S.No.4120/2022 by
deliberately suppressing material facts. According to the
petitioner, the dispute between the parties has already
culminated in arbitral proceedings in A.C.No.70/2014.
Aggrieved by the award, petitioner asserts that respondent
filed Section 34(1) application, which also came to be
rejected. It is further stated that respondent preferred an
appeal before this Court and the appeal was also
dismissed in MFA.No. 7923/2015. It is only after dismissal
of the appeal by this Court, the respondent suppressing all
the earlier proceedings, filed a suit in O.S.No.4120/2022
seeking same reliefs.
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
6. The petitioner has approached this Court on an
assumption that he is left remediless in view of withdrawal
of the suit and since, the suit was withdrawn before City
Civil Court, petitioner's remedy lies before this Court under
Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C.
7. Before this Court proceeds, it would be apposite
for this Court to cull out Section 340 of Cr.P.C. which
reads as under:
"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this
behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is
expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry should
be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-
section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been
committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court
or, as the case may be, in respect of a document
produced or given in evidence 152 in a proceeding in that
Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if
any, as it thinks necessary,
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having
jurisdiction;
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of
the accused before such Magistrate, or if the
alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court
thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused
in custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give
evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section
(1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that
Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1)
in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for
the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court
to which such former Court is subordinate within the
meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be
signed,
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a
High Court, by such officer of the Court as
the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of
the Court or by such officer of the Court as
the Court may authorise in writing in this
behalf.
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning
as in section 195."
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
8. A careful reading of Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C.
makes it abundantly clear that the legislature has
consciously employed the expression "in or in relation to a
proceedings in that Court". The use of the words "in" as
well as a wider phrase "in relation to" is of considerable
significance. The expression "in" would ordinarily connote
acts committed during the course of proceedings pending
before the Court. However, the phrase "in relation to" is of
much wider import and cannot be given a narrow or
restrictive construction. In a literal and ordinary meaning
the wordings "in relation to" encompasses acts having a
nexus connection or a reference to judicial proceedings,
whether such proceedings are pending, concluded or
otherwise withdrawn at the instance of the party who has
initiated the proceedings. The legislature by deliberately
expanding the phrase beyond the narrowed expression
"during pending proceedings" has clearly indicated that
Court's jurisdiction under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is not
circumscribed by the stage or survival of the proceedings.
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
Had the legislature intended to confine the power only to
pending proceedings, it would have expressly employed
limiting words to that effect.
9. Therefore, even if the original proceedings
stand disposed either on merits or is withdrawn at the
instance of the plaintiff/respondent, the Court retains
jurisdiction to entertain and decide the application under
Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C., since the statutory trigger is the
commission of the offence in or in relation to a particular
proceedings and not the pendency of the original
proceedings.
10. Merely because the respondent has withdrawn
the suit, the petitioner is not rendered remediless nor
precluded from invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under
Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C. The power under Section 340 of
Cr.P.C. read with Section 195(1)(b) is not dependant on
the subsistence of the original civil proceedings, rather, it
is a statutory mechanism to safeguard the purity and
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
sanctity of the judicial proceedings. An allegation of
perjury, fabrication of evidence or deliberate suppression
of material facts strikes at the administration of the justice
itself and constitutes an offence against the public justice
and not merely against an individual litigant. Therefore,
even if a suit in which false statements are allegedly
made, are withdrawn by the plaintiff, if it is expedient in
the interest of justice, the Court suo moto under Section
340(1) of Cr.P.C. or at the instance of the party under
Section 340(2) of Cr.P.C. by filing an application, can
initiate proceedings.
11. Consequently, this Court is of the view that
merely because the suit was withdrawn, the petitioner
could not have knocked the doors of this Court on the
premise that this Court being an appellate authority under
Section 341 of Cr.P.C. an application under Section 340(2)
of Cr.P.C. can be maintained before this Court. The
present petition is misconceived. This Court is of the view
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
that petitioner is not precluded in filing a 340(2) of Cr.P.C.
application before the very Court where perjury is alleged.
Conclusions:
(a) The expression "in or in relation to a proceeding
in that Court" occurring in Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. is of
wide amplitude and must be given its plain and literal
meaning.
(b) The word "in" refers to offences committed
during the course of judicial proceedings, whereas the
phrase "in relation to" expands the scope to include acts
having a direct nexus or connection with such
proceedings.
(c) The legislature has consciously not restricted
the applicability of Section 340(1) Cr.P.C. to pending
proceedings; no limiting words such as "during
pendency" are employed in the provision.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
(d) The jurisdiction of the Court under Section
340(1) Cr.P.C. is triggered by the commission of an
offence affecting administration of justice, and not by
the survival or continuation of the original lis.
(e) Withdrawal, dismissal, compromise, or disposal
of the original suit does not render the Court functus
officio for the limited purpose of examining whether it is
expedient in the interest of justice to initiate
prosecution.
(f) Proceedings under Sections 195 and 340
Cr.P.C. are independent and distinct from the main
proceedings and are aimed at preserving the sanctity of
judicial process.
(g) Consequently, an application under Section
340(1) Cr.P.C. is maintainable even after the conclusion
or withdrawal of the original proceedings, provided the
alleged offence was committed in or in relation to such
proceedings.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:13946
HC-KAR
12. Reserving liberty, this Court proceeds to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is disposed of.
(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to
file appropriate application if he chooses to do
so. If such an application is filed, the time spent
before this Court shall be excluded by extending
the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation
Act, 1963.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19
