S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is directed against an order dated 22nd February 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Delhi allowing Crl.A. No. 18 of 2005 filed by the Respondent No. 2 against an order dated 9th September 2005 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) Delhi in an application filed by the Petitioner herein under Section 340 CrPC. By the said order dated 9th September 2005, the learned MM came to the prima facie conclusion that Respondent No. 2 had

committed an offence under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and ought to be prosecuted for the same. The learned ASJ has, in the impugned order, set aside the order dated 9th September 2005 on the ground that the learned MM had not determined if it was expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be held for ascertaining whether the Respondent No. 2 should be prosecuted for the offence under Section 193 IPC.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that Respondent No. 2 wife filed an application under Section 125 CrPC seeking maintenance from the Petitioner husband for herself and the minor female child. In her petition she stated in Para 15 that she was "not employed anywhere and is unable to maintain herself and her said minor girl Shruti and they presently are survived on the mercy of parents of the petitioner No. 1 (wife) who themselves have limited resources to maintain the large family."

3. According to the Petitioner in the month of June 2001, the Respondent No. 2 wife had joined Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi as a `Receptionist and was receiving salary from the said hospital. On this basis, Petitioner had earlier filed an application under Section 340 CrPC which, according to Respondent No. 2, was dismissed on 16th September, 2003.

4. On 12th February 2004, Respondent No. 2 was examined in chief in the maintenance petition. She stated:

I was not working anywhere after my marriage, I was not working till today anywhere from the date when I was kicked out from my matrimonial home." She was cross examined on 7th April 2004 and was asked whether she was doing any job during the pendency of the petition. She replied that "since after coming to my parental home, I am not doing any job. I have one bank account in Co-operative Bank. It is incorrect to suggest that after coming to my parental home, I have worked with Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital, Rajpur Road, Delhi.

In response to another specific question whether she was holding a bank account at Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines she stated as under:

It is wrong to suggest that I am holding an account which is 427791 in

the above said bank i.e., PNB.

5. Consequent upon the above replies in cross examination, the Petitioner filed an application under Section 340 CrPC seeking the prosecution of the Petitioner for committing perjury punishable under Section 193 CrPC.

6. It appears that a reply was filed to the said petition by Respondent No. 2. Even evidence appears to have been led by examining the officials from both the Punjab National Bank as well as the Tirath Ram Shah Charitable Hospital.

7. RW-2 D.S. Bandari, Senior Manager, Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Delhi was examined on 28th September 2004. He confirmed that an account had been open by Respondent No. 2 with the bank with the addresses "C/o Tirathram Shah Hospital, 2 Battery Lane, Rajpur Road, Delhi -54." He stated: "On 20.07.01 Smt. Veena Bhatt opened her account in Punjab National Bank, Civil Lines, Delhi. The account was introduced by Sh.B.Arora, SF account No. 11908 with the address C/o Tirathram Shah Hospital, 2 Battery Lain(sic Lane), Rajpur Road, Delhi-54 with a initial amount of Rs. 500/-. She was allotted account No. 427791. Statement of the account since opening of the account till today is exhibited as Ex.RW2/A, Ex.RW2/B, Ex.RW2/C, Ex.RW2/D. At the tim