Judicial discretion under Section 340 of the CrPC requires significant evidence of falsehood and must not serve personal grievances, but rather ensure expedience in justice.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 227 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - Domestic Violence - Application challenging orders dismissing recalls and applications for perjury not initiated as the learned MM and ASJ deemed that the administration of justice was not hampered. The petitioner argued that the respondent filed false affidavits intentionally perjuring under the DV Act, concealing material information regarding income and assets. The court held it was not expedient to initiate prosecution under Section 340 as no substantial evidence was presented to warrant such action. (Paras 1, 20, 21, 35)

(B) Judicial Discretion - The courts must exercise discretion judiciously and should not initiate proceedings for perjury purely based on personal grievances between parties without substantial foundational evidence. (Paras 26, 33)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleges that the respondent filed false affidavits regarding her finances in domestic violence proceedings, while the respondent's petitions were dismissed for non-prosecution, and judicial discretion was rightly exercised not to pursue perjury charges.

Findings of Court:
The impugned orders were upheld as the learned MM and ASJ recorded their satisfaction regarding proceeding non-exercise and upheld that it would not serve the interests of justice.

Issues: Whether the courts erred by refusing to initiate proceedings under Section 340 based on alleged false affidavits and perjury.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that falsehood allegations should not be pursued unless it is expedient in the interests of justice and that perjury claims cannot be used as tools for personal vendettas.

Result: Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. case background and initial proceedings (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. court's reasoning and evaluation (Para 5 , 6 , 18 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 27 , 31 , 33 , 34)
3. petitioner's allegations and arguments (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. legal standards under section 340 of crpc (Para 19 , 20 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 32)
5. final order and dismissal of the petition (Para 35 , 36)

JUDGMENT :

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1. The present petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) challenging the order dated 28.02.2018 (hereafter ‘impugned order dated 28.02.2018’), passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (‘ASJ’), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, in Criminal Appeal No. 58/2017.

2. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 25.08.2017 (hereafter ‘impugned order dated 25.08.2017’), in Case No.4756/2017, whereby the learned Metropolitan Magistrate (‘MM’), West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi dismissed the petitioner’s application under Section 340 of the CrPC read with Section 195 of the CrPC.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent and the petitioner were married in the year 2012, whereafter, as per the petitioner, the respondent left the matrimonial home in less than two weeks after the marriage. In the year 2013, the respondent had instituted a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘DV Act’) against the petitioner. The application filed by the respondent under Section 23 of the DV Act for interim relief was dismissed on 11.03.2016. The petition under Section 12 of the DV Act was also dismissed for non-prosecution and non-appearance at the stage of evidence on 24.06.2017.

4. Thereafter, in the year 2017 itself, the petitioner filed an application under Section 340 of the CrPC against the respondent. The relevant excerpt of the said application is reproduced hereunder:

“DETAILS OF OFFENCES

That the Petitioner wife failed to comply the direction of the Hon’ble Court regarding submission of the affidavit of income and assets as per the following :

• The affidavit submitted of assets and income dated 13/10/2014 which are prerequisite as per the Delhi High Court Order submitted with false and fabricated, incomplete without supporting essential documents

• The crucial details having bearing on the facts concealed/falsely stated under oath intentionally before the Court as per following details:

1) As per head income para 2.2 iv) income from other sources in a) part the petitioner wife stated that she is getting an amount of Rs. 23,000/-p m as rental income from immovable property owned as per para 2.3 i) a) worth Rs. 25 lacs whereas per the letter enclosed from the sub-registrar the registered value of the property itself stands for more than Rs. 46.00 lacs.

2) Where as per the para 24 of the petition she has stated that she has no source of income and she is living in rented house the rent of which is being paid by the father. In fact she is having other source of income which is declared under the other head as salary in the affidavit.

3) Point 2.6 (xxv) of the affidavit wherein petitioner wife was supposed to furnish the details of all the pending/closed cases, in that she has concealed the details as per below:

➢ That the husband has filed a petition for Restitution of Conjugal Right u/s 9 of HMA wherein respondent wife has put her appearance and she is contesting the same

➢ That she has deliberately concealed the fact as to who has filed the divorce petition at Ghaziabad. In fact it was filed by her. She has deliberately concealed the above fact to support her wrong version in point 20 of the Petition where she has claimed that she wanted reconciliation with the respondent.

➢ She has concealed that husband had filed a complaint against her and her father, brother and mama u/s 323,420 etc as they had looted away the entire valuable articles, cash and jewellery from the