Citation: Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v. Sushil Dewan & Ors., CRL.A. 289/2026, Delhi High Court (Justice Madhu Jain), decided on 06.10.2026 | 2026:DHC:8774
When deciding whether to start proceedings under Section 340 CrPC for a false statement in court, the question is whether the statement was prima facie knowingly false on a material matter and whether an inquiry is expedient in the interests of justice, which is judged by the effect on the administration of justice and not by the injury to the litigant. A later correction, the absence of prejudice or the court not being misled does not automatically defeat this, and delay has to be seen in light of the procedural history. A knowingly false averment in a reply can attract Sections 191/193 and 209 IPC against those who knowingly took part in preparing, approving and filing it, not just the person who signed.
The Delhi High Court has directed a complaint for perjury-type offences against six CBI officers, including a Special Public Prosecutor, over a reply filed in a Delhi court in 2016 saying that “correspondence with the administrative Ministry” was under way, when it was not.
The matter arises from a disproportionate assets case against IRS officer Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, which collapsed after the High Court held in January 2016 that the sanction to prosecute him was invalid and he was discharged. The Law Ministry advised the CBI in June 2016 that there was no reasonable ground to challenge this before the Supreme Court. When Aggarwal asked for the return of his seized documents, the CBI’s reply of 2 August 2016 opposed this on the ground that correspondence with the Ministry about further legal action was “under way”. Aggarwal asked for action under Section 340 CrPC. The CBI filed an additional reply on 9 August 2016 and the trial judge, who found the statement incorrect, dismissed the application in October 2025 as an “imprecise choice of words”, with no prejudice, a prompt correction and a ten-year lapse. Justice Madhu Jain allowed Aggarwal’s appeal. She went through the CBI’s drafts and file notings and found that the first draft prepared by the inspector recorded that the Ministry had already turned down the proposal for an SLP, but this was struck out by a handwritten change in a later draft and replaced with the “correspondence under way” line. She said that, prima facie, this changed the very factual position put before the court and that each officer knew about the true position. The court held that the later correction did not wipe this out, since the CBI had continued to defend the statement even afterwards. Citing the Constitution Bench ruling in Iqbal Singh Marwah, it said that “expediency” depends on the effect on the administration of justice and not on the harm to the individual litigant, and that the long delay was explained by the pending litigation. The court directed the Special Judge to file a written complaint against all six officers under Sections 191/193 and 209 IPC within four weeks. It added that the magistrate will decide independently and that nothing said here is a finding of guilt.