Case: Sergi Transformer Explosion Prevention Technologies Pvt. Ltd. &amp; Another Vs. CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. &amp; Another

3. The controversy arises in the following backdrop :The respondent CTR Manufacturing Industries Ltd. filed an injunction suit before the District Court, Thane against Appellant No.By an ex parte ad interim order passed by the Trial Court in the said suit, appellant No. 1 herein was restrained from selling its products to Delhi Transco Ltd. (for short, "the DTL") under a specified tender notice issued by the latter. A second and further injunction order was passed by the said Court on 09.12.2010 by which the appellantwas restrained from taking any steps towards complying with the purchase order, dated 01.12.2010 issued by the DTL in its favour.4. Aggrieved by the said order, thepreferred Appeal No. 1446 of 2010 before the High Court of Bombay which came to be dismissed by an order dated 24.12.2010. The case of thein is that despite the orders of injunction mentioned above, the appellant submitted its drawings to DTL, in terms of the purchase order issued in its favour, on 24.12.2010. After doing so, theappears to have made an application on 27.12.2010 before the District Court seeking modification of the second ad interim order, dated 09.12.2010. That application for modification was dismissed by the District Court by its order, dated 28.12.2010 against which appellant No. 1 preferred an appeal before the High Court (A.O. No. 102 of 2011) on 30.12.2010. The High Court eventually allowed the said appeal by order dated, 11.01.2011 and directed the filing of the drawings before the DTL. It was in the above background that respondent No. 1 filed Civil Application No. 1282 of 2011 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. accusing theof perjury inasmuch they had while filing an application for permission to submit the drawings suppressed the fact that the drawings already stood filed. The High Court issued notice in the said application; heard counsel for the parties and eventually came to the conclusion that a case for directing prosecution of the appellants for the offences mentioned above was indeed made out. The High Court has accordingly directed the Registrar (Judicial) attached to the High Court to file an appropriate complaint before the competent Court for prosecuting the appellants. The present appeal assails the correctness of the said direction.

Court's reasoning:
9. The High Court while considering the matter has in our opinion, failed to appreciate the defence that had been set up by the appellants. The explanation offered by the appellants was a plausible one which ought to have been kept in mind by the High Court while examining whether the present was a fit case for prosecution of the appellants. At any rate, the High Court has not adverted to the question whether it was expedient "in the interest of Justice" to launch prosecution against the appellants for the mistake which according to the respondents was deliberate but unintentional according to the appellants. According to the appellants the mistake occurred out of a certain communication gap between the higher officers of the company and the operational staff. That Prosecution cannot be launched just at the asking of a party is well established. A long line of decisions of this Court have examined the circumstances in which the court ought to invoke that power. The High Court has, while considering the question of launching prosecution for perjury, to examine whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to do so, having regard to the totality of the circumstances. Inasmuch the High Court has failed to advert to that aspect and record a finding that it is expedient in the interest of justice to direct prosecution, the order passed by the High Court falls short of the legal requirements.In the totality of the above facts, we are of the view that the High Court has taken a hyper technical view of the matter in directing launch of prosecution against the appellants. From the defence set up by the appellants and the explanation offered by them it appears to us that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to defy the orders by which they have been restrained from taking further steps towards compliance of the purchase order, dated 02.12.2010 issued by DTL, for otherwise, there was no need for the appellants to approach the District Court and the High court for permission to do so.12. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the present is not a fit case in which the High Court should have directed the institution of criminal proceedings against the appellants.