Case Name: M/s BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Amit Gupta
Date of Judgment: May 28, 2025
Introduction
This order deals with an application filed by the Applicant Company, M/s BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd., under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 340 r/w Section 195 CrPC, 1973). The Applicant sought initiation of proceedings against the Non-applicant, for allegedly deposing falsely before the Ld. Court by filing fabricated and manipulated documentary evidence, including a false certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
The Applicant alleged that the Non-Applicant deliberately attempted to mislead and defraud the Ld. Court by producing forged Board Resolutions, falsified e-mails, and manipulated company records, thereby committing offences affecting the administration of justice. The Non-Applicant denied the allegations, asserting that the application was malafide, collusive, and filed to harass him.
Hence, the Ld. Court, was tasked with examining the allegations pertaining to forgery and tampering of company documents, and whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to initiate criminal proceedings under the BNSS.
Background of the Case
M/s BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd., a registered Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC), alleged that Non-Applicant, in collusion with another individual, Mr. Sanjay Goel, was using M/s Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. as a front to defraud the Applicant and evade liabilities. The Applicant contended that Non-Applicant had filed a fabricated Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 and an e-mail dated 28.09.2017 before the Ld. Court through an application under Order XI Rule 1(5) CPC. It was claimed that these documents were deliberately altered and misused to mislead the Ld. Court in relation to a pending civil suit titled “M/s Majestic Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.”
The Applicant further alleged that the Non-Applicant tampered with the company’s financial statements, Board Reports, and minutes of meetings for the financial years 2016–17 and 2017–18. The signatures of Mrs. Vasudha Gupta, wife of Non-Applicantwere allegedly added to the Board Resolution even though she was not even a Director at the time of passing of board resolution.
In response, Non-Applicant submitted that he had relied only on public records available on the MCA portal and that the company’s Annual General Meetings were delayed due to procedural issues, which were later regularized through NCLT orders. He further argued that Mrs. Vasudha Gupta certified the extract of minutes of the meeting in her capacity as director at the time of filing of the amended suit, and that no ante-dated or falsified resolutions were prepared.
Further, the Non-Applicant submitted that the e-mails relied upon were genuine and sequentially sent, and there was no intention to tamper or falsify evidence. He claimed that the Applicant was colluding with Mr. Sanjay Goel to falsely implicate him and obstruct the ongoing recovery suit.
Issues framed by the Ld. Court
- Whether the Non-Applicant fabricated the Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 and e-mails dated 28.09.2017 to mislead the Ld. Court?
- Whether the Non-Applicant committed perjury by furnishing false certificates under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
- Whether initiation of proceedings under Section 379 read with Section 215 of the BNSS, 2023 was expedient in the interests of justice?
Legal Provisions
- Section 379 BNSS, 2023 (procedure for offences under Section 215 BNSS / Section 195 CrPC)
- Section 215 BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 195 CrPC, 1973)
- Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Analysis of the Case
The Ld. Court carefully examined the rival contentions and the evidence on record and thereby noted that the Board’s report, annexures, and financial statements bore the signatures of both Non-Applicant and Mr. Sanjay Goel. This fact was admitted by Mr. Sanjay Goel himself during cross-examination in the connected civil suit and in the Affidavit of Admission / Denial. Such an admission demonstrated that the documents were jointly executed and signed before NCLT officials during the Board Meeting held on 15.09.2018.
Regarding the allegation that Mrs. Vasudha Gupta’s signature was fraudulently added, the Ld. Court found that she was appointed as Director in June/July 2019 and had merely certified the extract of minutes of the meeting at the time of filing the amended suit in January 2020. Her role was limited to certifying the extract in her capacity as a Director and did not indicate fabrication or ante-dating of the Resolution.
Upon comparing the extracts of minutes filed originally and later with the application, the Ld. Court observed that an additional paragraph was added mentioning that Non-Applicant had highlighted BKR Capital Pvt. Ltd.’s default and stressed the urgency to initiate legal action before 02.12.2018 to prevent the bar of limitation. The Court held that this addition was part of the meeting’s summary and did not amount to fabrication or creation of false evidence.
On the issue of e-mail forgery, the Ld. Court noted that Non-Applicant had sent multiple e-mails on 28.09.2017 one at 2:47 a.m., another at 3:03 a.m., and a third at 3:13 a.m. The Court held that sending separate e-mails in continuation of each other was not tampering of evidence, but rather clarification and elaboration of earlier communication.
In determining whether proceedings under Section 379 BNSS should be initiated, the Court referred to the Supreme Court decisions in Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar (2019 INSC 132) and Sasikala Pushpa v. State of Tamil Nadu (2019 INSC 636). These cases established that before directing prosecution for perjury, the Court must not only find a prima facie case but also consider whether initiating such proceedings is expedient in the interest of justice. The Ld. Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 379 BNSS (akin to Section 340 CrPC) is to protect the administration of justice, and not to address every minor dispute regarding documentary evidence.
The Ld. Court concluded that the Applicant had failed to provide concrete proof of tampering or forgery. The disputed documents were either admitted by the parties or were certified public records, and there was no substantial impact on the course of justice. Hence, there was no justification to invoke the extraordinary power under Section 379 BNSS.
Conclusion
The Ld. Court, after examining the documents and the rival contentions, found that the allegations of forgery and fabrication were not proved. The Board Resolution dated 15.09.2018 had in fact been signed by both directors, a fact admitted by Mr. Sanjay Goel in Affidavit of Admission / Denial, cross-examination, and the certification by Ms. Vasudha Gupta was only in her capacity as director at the time of filing the amended suit. The Ld. Court also held that the e-mails of 28.09.2017, though sent at different times on the same date, did not amount to tampering or falsification.
Relying on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Narendra Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar and Sasikala Pushpa v. State of Tamil Nadu, the Court reiterated that the power under Section 379 read with Section 215 BNSS (corresponding to Section 340 CrPC) is discretionary, and the decisive factor is whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate prosecution. In the present case, no such expediency was shown.
Accordingly, the Ld. Court held that the Applicant had failed to make out a prima facie case, and since the alleged discrepancies did not affect the administration of justice in any material manner, there was no ground to proceed with criminal action. Therefore, the said application was dismissed.
The Non- Applicant, Mr. Amit Gupta was represented by-
Mr. Akhand Pratap Singh Chauhan- Partner (Litigation)
Mr. Shantanu Garg (Senior Associate)
Mr. Namanveer Singh Sodhi (Associate)