[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Madras High Court

S.Dhivya vs E.Senthil Anand on 14 May, 2026

                                                                C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026


                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
                                                    DATED: 14-05-2026
                                                        CORAM
                                  THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR
                                                C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026
                                                          &
                                               C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026
                                                          &
                                    Caveat No.1890 of 2026 in C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026

                Selvi S.Dhivya
                                                                                               Petitioner

                                                           Vs
                1. Dr.E.Senthil Anand
                   S/o.Dr.N.Elavarasan and 2 Others

                                                                                         ..Respondents

                              For Petitioner    :       Mr.S.Shyam Kumar


                                                        ORDER

The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed as against the order

dated 17.04.2026 in I.A.No.10 of 2026 in O.S.No.58 of 2020 passed by the

learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam.

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that caveat petition

filed against unnumbered I.A.No. ___ of 2026, whereas in the present case,

challenge was made against the order passed in I.A.No.10 of 2026 in O.A.No.58

of 202. The said submission is hereby recorded.

__________ Page1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026

3..It is the case of the petitioner that the present proceedings arise out of a

dispute relating to the possession, administration and control of a Public

Educational Trust between the present trustees and the removed trustees. The

respondents/plaintiffs instituted O.S.No.58 of 2020 on the file of the Additional

Sub Court, Vridhachalam, seeking relief of declaration and permanent

injunction against the petitioner and others.

4.From the date of filing of the suit viz., 21.02.2020, the consistent stand

taken by the respondents in various judicial proceedings was that they were

continuously in possession and administration of the Trust and that the

petitioner had never been in control or management of the Trust affairs.

Subsequently, the respondents filed W.P.No.3321 of 2021 before this Court and

in the sworn affidavit filed in support thereof, it was specifically averred in

paragraph 8 as follows:

“The management and administration of the affairs of these educational institutions are being looked after by me exclusively in my capacity as the Managing Trustee in strict adherence to the terms of the said Trust Deed and subject to the supervision of the trustees in the said trust.” Further, in paragraph 13 of the very same affidavit, the respondents

categorically stated that

“I submit that these persons are not at all in possession or

__________ Page2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026

management of the said trust properties and the educational institutions run by it.” In the said writ petition the respondents had also obtained an order in their

favour.

5.Again the respondents approached this Court by filing W.P.No.30154

of 2022 seeking police protection to run the administration of the Trust and

even in the said proceedings, they reiterated that they alone were in possession

and administration of the Trust and that the petitioner had no manner of

possession or control over the Trust affairs. Based on such categorical

representations, this Court, by order dated 25.08.2023, directed the police

authorities to consider their representation for protection as follow:

“3.The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the police for enquiry and the respondent police shall conduct the enquiry keeping in mind the judgment in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2013 (6) CTC 353. On completion of the enquiry, the respondent police shall take a decision regarding the further course of action. This process shall be completed by the respondent police within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

6.Thereafter, for non-compliance of the aforesaid order dated 25.08.2023, the

respondents filed Contempt Petition No.158 of 2024 before this Court.

Subsequently, when the petitioner approached this Court by filing

__________ Page3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026

Crl.O.P.No.29244 of 2023 seeking police protection, both the matters were

taken up together and this Court by order dated 19.12.2024 upon taking note of

the proceedings of the Sub Collector dated 26.11.2023, observed that the

petitioner was in possession and administration of the Trust and permitted the

petitioner to continue the administration of the Trust. Consequently, the

Contempt Petition No.158 of 2024 filed by the respondents also came to be

closed on the very same day, with an observations as follows:

“2.When the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the enquiry was conducted pursuant to the orders passed by this Court and it was closed by directing the parties to approach the Civil Court.”

7.Thereafter the respondents attempted to amend the present suit for

declaration and bare injunction into one for mandatory injunction by

introducing a wholly contradictory plea that they were dispossessed from the

administration and possession of the Trust on 28.02.2020, i.e., within seven

days from the date of filing of O.S.No.58 of 2020 on 21.02.2020, by filing

I.A.No.6 of 2025 on 17.03.2025, seeking amendment of the plaint by

introducing the said dispossession.

8.The learned counsel for the petitioner drew attention of this Court to

I.A.No.6 of 2025 and specifically pointed out that while seeking amendment of

the pleadings, the respondents had failed to amend the cause of action portion in __________ Page4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026

conformity with the amended relief sought for. He further submitted that the

cause of action is the backbone of a suit and in the absence of a proper cause of

action, the suit itself cannot survive. The said I.A. came to be allowed on the

ground that the amendment was sought prior to commencement of trial and

C.R.P No.6254/2025 and Special Leave Petition No.7122/2026 preferred by the

petitioner were also dismissed on the very same ground.

9.In the above circumstances, the petitioner filed I.A.No.10 of 2025 under

Section 340 Cr.P.C and 379 of BNSS. seeking initiation of perjury proceedings

against the respondents for having filed false and contradictory sworn affidavits

before various Courts. Initially, the learned Sub Judge, Virudhachalam returned

the said application on the ground of maintainability. Even after the

maintainability aspect was specifically clarified by the petitioner, the

application was not numbered for a considerable period . Thereafter, on

09.04.2026, the learned Judge heard arguments only with regard to the

maintainability of the application and numbered the same on 17.04.2026.

However, on the very same day, without affording an opportunity to the

petitioner to advance arguments on merits and without conducting even a

preliminary inquiry as contemplated under Section 340 Cr.P.C and 379 BNSS.,

the learned Judge proceeded to dismiss the application by observing that the

issues involved could be decided only after recording evidence in the suit trial.

__________ Page5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026

10.In the considered view of this Court, such an approach is not

sustainable, since in matters relating to filing of false sworn affidavits and

contradictory pleadings before judicial forums, the Court is only required to

examine whether a prima facie case affecting administration of justice is made

out, whereupon the matter has to be forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate

for appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

11.In this regard, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in M/s Gokaldas Paper

Products vs M/s Lilliput Kidswear Ltd & Anr., reported in 2023 SCC OnLine

Del 2191, while dealing with initiation of proceedings under Section 340

Cr.P.C., observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 as follows:

“11. Respondent No. 2 has offered to tender an unconditional apology. However, in the opinion of the Court, the same is of no avail. Perjury, is the act of knowingly and wilfully making false statements under oath, with the intent to deceive or mislead the court. It is a serious criminal offence, as it strikes at the very heart of the judicial process by undermining the integrity of the evidence presented in Court. The act of contempt can be purged or remedied, by the offending party, but in contrast, perjury cannot. Simply recanting or correcting a false statement cannot undo the act. Affidavits in a court of law have sanctity and cannot be taken casually. Thus, a false statement to the Court has to necessarily invite adverse action. In the present matter, the Court is not concerned as to why the promised schedule of payments has been breached by Respondents. The primary concern is Respondent No.

__________ Page6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026

2’s statement of denying the liability of the dues in face of an earlier unequivocal admission. Such a contradictory stand without any cogent explanation is prima facie a deliberate false statement to mislead the Court and thus an apology by Respondent No. 2 would not deter an action invited for perjury.” “12. Accordingly, this Court is prima facie of the view that offences under Sections 191 and 192 of IPC, 1860 punishable under Section 193, 199 and 200 of IPC, 1860 have been committed by Respondent No.2 in relation to the present proceedings. In terms of Section 340(1) of CrPC, 1973 read with Section 195(1)(b)

(i) of CrPC, 1973, this Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the false statement made by Respondent No. 2 in the reply to the present petition, for which a written complaint should be made to the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate. The Registrar General is hereby directed to draw up and make a complaint in the above terms and send it to the appropriate Metropolitan Magistrate within four weeks. The said complaint will be accompanied by a complete certified copy of the entire file of the present matter and CO. PET. 519/2012.”

12.Similarly, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Manipal Business

Solutions Private Limited vs Aurigain Consultants Private Limited and Ors., in

Crl.M.A.No.14926/2023 in C.S.(OS).No.190/2022, while considering initiation

of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., elaborately dealt with the scope and

ambit of Sections 195 and 340 Cr.P.C. and ultimately held in paragraphs 37 to

42 as follows:

__________ Page7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026

“37. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the ingredients of Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC are attracted, as the alleged false statements form part of the judicial record and have a direct bearing on the administration of justice. The test is not merely whether the Plaintiff entered the witness box, but whether false statements, knowingly made and verified, were placed before this Court with the intent to secure favourable orders, thereby impacting the sanctity of judicial proceedings.” “38. In the present case, averments have been made in the Plaint by the Plaintiff knowing fully well that they are false.” “39. On the basis of the false statement, the Plaintiff was the beneficiary of stay and thereafter, in order to cover up its lapses, the Plaintiff has resorted to filing certain documents, which, in the opinion of this Court, are prima facie fabricated.” “41. In view of the aforesaid observations, this Court finds that the instant case is one wherein it is expedient or in the interest of justice for the Court, to initiate the proceedings under Section 340 CrPC.” “42. Therefore, this Court directs the Registrar General of this Court to prepare a complaint in terms of Section 195 of CrPC read with Section 340 CrPC and file it before the competent Court for action.”

13.In the present case, the respondents consistently submitted before

various Courts from the year 2020 onwards that they alone were in possession

and administration of the Trust and that the petitioner was never in management

of the Trust affairs. However, in the amendment application filed in the year

__________ Page8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026

2025, they introduced a wholly contradictory plea alleging dispossession on

28.02.2020 itself. Such sworn statements prima facie disclose intentional

falsehood made for securing favourable judicial orders.

14.The learned Sub Judge, instead of examining whether a prima facie

case under Section 340 Cr.P.C/379 BNSS. was made out, dismissed the

application on the ground that the matter could be decided only after recording

evidence in the suit trial. The said approach is not sustainable, since at the stage

of Section 340 Cr.P.C/379 BNSS., the Court is only required to form a prima

facie opinion regarding commission of offences affecting administration of

justice.

15.Upon consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is

satisfied that a prima facie case is made out warranting initiation of proceedings

under Section 340 Cr.P.C/379 BNSS. against the respondents for filing false

and contradictory sworn affidavits before judicial forums.

16.Filing false affidavits and taking inconsistent stands before Courts

strike at the very foundation of the administration of justice. Such abuse of

judicial process cannot be permitted to go unchecked and deserves to be dealt

with sternly in accordance with law.

__________ Page9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.No.3044 of 2026 & C.M.P.No.12859 of 2026

17.Since the actual adjudication and trial are to be independently

undertaken by the jurisdictional Magistrate, the presence or hearing of the

respondents is not necessary at this preliminary stage of forming prima facie

satisfaction for setting the criminal law in motion.

18.In the result, the Registry is directed to draw up a complaint under

Section 195 Cr.P.C/215 BNSS. read with Section 340 Cr.P.C/379 BNSS. and

forward the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate, concerned for proceeding in

accordance with law. The Registry is further directed to call for the relevant

records, pleadings, affidavits and connected proceedings before the Magistrate,

concerned along with the complaint. Consequently, further proceedings in

O.S.No.58 of 2020 on the file of the learned Additional Sub-Judge,