"Give Me Just 2 Minutes!" Young Advocate's Brilliant Argument Grips Supreme Court

SLP (Crl.) No. 10350/2026- Manipal Business Solutions Private Limited & Pratiksha Sharma vs Aurigain Consultants Private Limited & Others In this matter before the Supreme Court, the petitioner challenged proceedings initiated under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with prosecution for offences such as giving false evidence or fabricating documents in judicial proceedings. The dispute arose from a commercial conflict between two companies. The petitioner explained that her company, which employs around 200 people and operates in a technical services sector, routinely requires employees to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and employment contracts to protect confidential business information. According to the petitioner, during the COVID-19 period, some employees were hired when normal documentation procedures were disrupted. Subsequently, three employees allegedly left the company, established a competing business, and began soliciting the petitioner's clients. In response, the petitioner filed a commercial suit seeking liquidated damages of ₹10 crore and relied upon NDAs and employment agreements as part of the claim. However, the suit was later withdrawn. The controversy emerged when the former employees alleged that certain NDAs relied upon by the petitioner did not bear their genuine signatures. The High Court recorded findings suggesting that interim relief had been obtained on the basis of false disclosures and subsequently initiated proceedings under Section 340 CrPC. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner strongly denied any intention to mislead the court and argued that all relevant documents had been disclosed. She claimed that several employees had worked for the company, received salaries, and resigned without ever disputing their employment relationship. The petitioner further argued that the matter was fundamentally a private commercial dispute rather than a case warranting criminal prosecution for perjury. She contended that the application seeking perjury action was filed several months after the withdrawal of the civil suit and only after proceedings regarding vacation of interim relief had taken place. Emphasizing the legal threshold for invoking Section 340 CrPC, she submitted that perjury proceedings should be reserved for cases involving serious interference with the administration of justice and broader public interest, rather than disputes arising from contractual disagreements between private parties. She maintained that there was no deliberate attempt to deceive the court and that any grievances regarding contractual breaches or damages should be addressed through ordinary civil remedies rather than criminal proceedings.