JUDGMENT

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. - This petition has been brought under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 08.04.2019 of Family Court, passed in M.J.C. No.274 of 2016, issuance of writ of mandamus, for direction to the Family Court, Bilaspur to initiate proceeding under Section 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C and also for issuance of mandamus directing the Family Court, Bilaspur to allow the documents and electronic evidence, which may be produced by the petitioner.

2. Respondent No.3 and 4 Mamta Sahu and Saumya Sahu Sahu have filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Bilaspur, which has been registered as M.J.C. No.329 of 2015. At the stage of evidence of the parties, these respondents have filed affidavits before the Court below under Order 18 Rule 4 of C.P.C. to be read as their examination-in-chief. The petitioner has assailed the contents of the affidavit on the ground that the witnesses have made false statement before the Court and the petitioner has evidence in his possession to disprove the statement given by the witnesses. On that basis an application was filed referring to Section 340 and 195 of Cr.P.C. praying that order be passed for registration of offence against the private respondents. The Court below has considered on the application and passed the impugned order dated 08.04.2019 by dismissing the application filed by the petitioner.

3. It is submitted by the petitioner, who is appearing in person before this Court, that affidavit filed by the respondent No.3- Mamta Sahu, Ramavtar Sahu and their statement in cross-examination recorded before the Family Court very clearly establishes the offence of perjury has been committed in this case. The petitioner in person has demonstrated by referring to the evidence, which has been recorded before the Court below and also referring to the other evidence, which he intends to produce before the Court below that the offence of perjury has been committed. It is also submitted that the petitioner has in his possession recording of telephone calls made which may be produced before the Court below if required. The details of these reference need not to be mentioned in this order as that is still subject for consideration by the trial Court itself. On this basis, prayer has been made that relief be granted as prayed for.

4. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Perumal Vs. Janki, (2014) 5 SCC 377 , Sunny Bhumbla Vs. Shashi, in Cr.A. No.197/SB 2010, decided on 25.01.2010, judgment of Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), in case of Syed Nazim Hussain Vs. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court and another, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) 56/2002 decided on 09.01.2003 and judgment of Kerala High Court in case of Santhosh Madhavan @ Swami Amritha Chaithanya Vs. State, represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala, Ernakulam, passed in CRL.A. No.1599/2009 (D), decided on 19.12.2013, in these cases, the Courts have held that grounds were present for proceeding under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. With respect to the admissibility of electronic evidence, the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shafhi Mohammad Vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh, passed in SLP (Crl) 2302/2011, decided on 30.01.2018, in which it has been held that the electronic evidence can be produced subject to procedural requirement under Section 65 -B of the Evidence Act by a person, who is in position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device, therefore, the petitioner, who has made the recording from his own mobile phones, he is in position to produce such evidence.

5. The submission made by the petitioner in person have been opposed by the State counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and it is submitted that the documents that have been filed along with the petition shows that the petitioner has lea