Provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. even in relation to documents where forgery are committed prior to filing in a Court proceeding
Background of the Case:
The case in question, KG Marketing India Vs Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr., involves a complex trademark dispute between the appellant, KG Marketing India, and the respondents, Rashi Santosh Soni and another party. The litigation was initiated when the appellant, KG Marketing India, filed a suit, CS (COMM) No.18/2023, asserting its rights over certain trademarks and claiming extensive use and advertising of these marks. The appellant sought judicial relief based on these claims, relying heavily on newspaper advertisements to establish the substantial promotion of its trademarks in the market.
However, the respondents, Rashi Santosh Soni and the second respondent, responded by filing a cross-suit, CS (COMM) No.477/2023, alleging that KG Marketing India had engaged in fraudulent practices to support its claims. The respondents contended that the advertisements presented by the appellant were not genuine but rather fabricated to deceive the court into believing that the appellant had established goodwill and extensive use of the trademarks.
The allegations raised by the respondents led to a more serious question: whether the appellant had deliberately submitted forged documents to support its legal claims, thereby committing an offense under the law, specifically under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), which deals with offenses related to the filing of false statements or evidence in judicial proceedings.
Issue of the Case:
The primary issue before the court centered on the authenticity of the newspaper advertisements submitted by KG Marketing India. The appellant claimed that these advertisements, which were presented as evidence of trademark promotion, were genuine and formed the basis for their trademark claims.
In contrast, the respondents contended that these documents were forged and fabricated, and that KG Marketing India had committed an offense by submitting these false documents along with a false Statement of Truth, which accompanied their suit. The filing of a false Statement of Truth under Order VI Rule 15A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a serious offense and can lead to criminal liability under Section 340 of the CrPC if the court finds that false evidence or documents have been intentionally produced.
Therefore, the key legal question before the court was whether the appellant’s conduct in submitting allegedly forged advertisements amounted to an offense under Section 340 of the CrPC and whether the court had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings against the appellant for filing a false Statement of Truth.
Contentions of the Parties:
Appellant's Contentions: KG Marketing India, the appellant, maintained that the court lacked jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 340 of the CrPC. Their primary argument was based on the fact that the forgery and fabrication of the documents, if any, occurred before the institution of the legal proceedings. The appellant argued that since the documents were fabricated prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, Section 340 could not be invoked.
In support of this contention, the appellant relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court, which, according to them, restricted the court’s ability to take action under Section 340 CrPC unless the offense had been committed during the course of judicial proceedings. The appellant argued that any alleged forgery or falsification of evidence that took place before the initiation of the suit could not be the subject of criminal proceedings under this provision.
Respondents' Contentions: The respondents, Rashi Santosh Soni and the other party, vigorously opposed the appellant's submissions. They asserted that KG Marketing India had submitted forged documents to bolster its trademark claims, which amounted to a deliberate attempt to mislead the court. According to the respondents, the filing of false evidence with a fraudulent Statement of Truth violated the sanctity of judicial proceedings and constituted an offense under Section 340 of the CrPC, regardless of when the forgery occurred.
The respondents argued that once false documents had been introduced into the legal process, the court was well within its rights to take cognizance of the offense and initiate proceedings against the appellant for perjury and forgery. They urged the court to reject the appellant’s technical defense regarding the timing of the forgery and hold KG Marketing India accountable for attempting to deceive the court.
Issues Dealt with by the Court:
The court had to address several critical issues:
Authenticity of the Newspaper Advertisements: The court had to determine whether the newspaper advertisements submitted by KG Marketing India as evidence of its trademark promotion were indeed genuine or whether they were fabricated, as alleged by the respondents.
Jurisdiction under Section 340 CrPC: The court also had to resolve the question of whether it had the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under Section 340 CrPC if the forgery or fabrication of evidence occurred before the legal proceedings commenced. This raised the issue of whether the timing of the offense (before or during the legal proceedings) affected the court’s power to act under Section 340.
Filing of False Statement of Truth: The court was also called upon to determine whether the appellant had filed a false Statement of Truth, and if so, what legal consequences would follow from this act, particularly in the context of trademark litigation.
Reasoning and Final Decision:
After a thorough examination of the evidence and the arguments presented by both sides, the court concluded that KG Marketing India had indeed submitted forged and fabricated documents in support of its claims. The court held that the evidence clearly indicated that the appellant had fabricated newspaper advertisements to mislead the court into believing that their trademarks had been widely promoted.
The court rejected the appellant's contention that it lacked jurisdiction to act under Section 340 CrPC merely because the forgery occurred before the initiation of the legal proceedings. The court held that once forged documents were introduced into the court’s record, it had the authority to take action under Section 340 CrPC, irrespective of when the forgery occurred. The court emphasized that the filing of a false Statement of Truth, accompanied by forged documents, constituted an offense under Section 340 CrPC, which warranted the initiation of criminal proceedings against the appellant.
In addition, the court dismissed the appellant's argument that they had been compelled to file a false Statement of Truth due to a prior forgery, calling this defense "unacceptable" and lacking in merit. The court concluded that such a submission could not excuse or justify the appellant's conduct in producing false documents before the court.
Finally, the court upheld the learned Single Judge’s decision directing the Registrar General to lodge a complaint with the concerned Judicial Magistrate for the initiation of appropriate criminal proceedings against KG Marketing India under Section 340 CrPC. The court found no merit in the appellant’s appeal and accordingly dismissed it, reaffirming the principle that parties who submit false evidence or documents in judicial proceedings must face legal consequences, regardless of the timing of the offense.
Conclusion:
The court’s ruling in KG Marketing India Vs Rashi Santosh Soni & Anr. serves as a strong reminder that the sanctity of judicial proceedings must be preserved, and those who attempt to deceive the court by submitting forged documents will be held accountable under the law. The decision underscores that Section 340 CrPC applies not only to offenses committed during the proceedings but also to forged or false evidence introduced into the record, regardless of when the forgery occurred. By dismissing the appellant’s technical defense, the court sent a clear message that the filing of false Statements of Truth and fabricated documents will not be tolerated in the legal system.
Case Citation: KG Marketing India Vs Rashi Santosh: 23.08.2024: RFA(OS)(COMM) 16/2024: 2024:DHC6385:Delhi High Court: Vibhu Bakhru and Sachin Datta, H.J.
Written by: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman
IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney] United & United
Disclaimer:
The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
