IMPORTANT POINT
Prosecution for perjury in matrimonial disputes requires clear evidence of deliberate falsehood and must be deemed expedient in the interest of justice.

Headnote:
Perjury - Matrimonial Dispute - IPC Sections 191, 193, 199, 209; Cr.P.C. Section 340 - The court emphasized that prosecution for perjury in matrimonial cases requires a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood and must be expedient in the interest of justice, discouraging frivolous claims.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and respondent were married in 2016. The petitioner sought maintenance, claiming unemployment, while the respondent alleged she misled the court by not disclosing her employment with HDFC Bank, leading to a complaint under IPC and Cr.P.C. sections.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had reasonably explained her omission regarding her employment status and that the lower court failed to establish a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood, thus the order for prosecution was set aside.
Issues: Whether the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be initiated based solely on the estranged spouse's claims without a prima facie opinion from the court regarding expediency in the interest of justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for initiating perjury proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C., there must be clear evidence of deliberate falsehood and a finding that prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice.
Result: The impugned order was set aside and remanded for fresh consideration.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points relevant for legal analysis:

Prosecution for perjury in matrimonial disputes requires clear, deliberate falsehood and must be deemed necessary in the interest of justice. The mere presence of contradictory statements or inaccuracies does not automatically justify prosecution (!) (!) (!) .
Initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. involves two essential conditions: the material must suggest a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood, and the court must find that such prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice. The court must record its opinion that prosecution is in the broader interest of justice, based on an assessment of the factual matrix and the impact on the administration of justice (!) (!) (!) .
The process of forming an opinion for initiating such proceedings is discretionary and requires careful consideration; it is not merely a mechanical or opportunistic act. The court must evaluate whether the falsehood is conspicuous, intentional, and material to the case outcome (!) (!) (!) .
The law emphasizes that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. should not be misused for personal vendettas or to harass the opposing party. They are meant to serve the larger purpose of protecting the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that false evidence does not obstruct justice (!) (!) .
The court must distinguish between innocent inaccuracies or misstatements and deliberate falsehood. If a plausible explanation is provided for omissions or discrepancies, and there is no evidence of mala fide intent, initiating perjury proceedings may not be justified (!) .
The order for initiating prosecution must reflect a reasoned application of mind, considering whether the false statement was made consciously and whether prosecuting is expedient in the interest of justice. Orders lacking this assessment are liable to be set aside and remanded for proper consideration (!) .
In the specific case discussed, the court found that the petitioner’s resignation and the reasons for not disclosing certain bank account details were reasonably explained and did not constitute a deliberate falsehood with mala fide intent. Consequently, the order for prosecution was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with the legal principles outlined above (!) .

Please let me know if you need further analysis or assistance with drafting legal opinions or documents based on this case.

JUDGMENT :

(Harpreet Singh Brar, J.) :

The present revision petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 16.12.2023 passed by the learned Family Court, Sonipat, vide which Reader of the Family Court was directed to file a complaint under Sections 191, 193, 199 & 209 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) on behalf of the Court against the petitioner.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Briefly, the facts are that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 was solemnized on 16.04.2016 as per Hindu rites and rituals. However, matrimonial discord ensued and the petitioner filed a petition seeking grant of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and both the parties were directed to file affidavits indicating their income and expenditure. In the said affidavit, the petitioner claimed to be unemployed while she was employed with the HDFC Bank for the last four years. Thereafter, respondent no. 2 filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191, 193, 199 & 209 IPC claiming that the petitioner has misled the Court by giving false information.

CONTENTIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the impugned order was passed without following the procedure prescribed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and the same is not sustainable in view of settled law since the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked by a private person. Further, a prior inquiry is required to be conducted to establish the alleged offence and a written complaint to that effect is required to be filed thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon resignation submitted by the petitioner (Annexure P-4) on 30.08.2022 to contend that on the date of filing of her income-expenditure affidavit i.e., 19.09.2022, she was not employed. Moreover, the bank account in HDFC Bank was a salary account and as such, she was not supposed to disclose the same after submitting her resignation. The learned Court below has passed the impugned order without considering this fact. The respondent-husband-has filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 191, 193, 199 & 209 IPC out of personal vendetta and private spite solely to wreak vengeance on the petitioner.

OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, the following question is framed:

‘Whether the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. can be allowed to be initiated in a matrimonial dispute at the ipse dixit of the estranged spouse, without formation of a prima facie opinion by the Court regarding its expediency in the interest of justice?’

5. The genesis of the present controversy lies in the claim of respondent No.2-husband that the petitioner-wife has given false information regarding her employment status while filing the income and assets affidavit, in view of Rajnesh Vs. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. While the act of giving false information, that has the potential to impact the adjudication of the case, cannot be condoned, the reaction to the same has to be proportional to its nature. If the act can be justified by providing a reasonable explanation or by proving that the same was not deliberate, concessions must be made. The proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. being expedient in the interest of justice is the litmus test of its initiation. However, the formation of opinion regarding its expedient nature would call for a balance to be struck between all relevant factors.

6. A two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subrata Roy Sahara Vs. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 470 has taken note of the great affliction caused by frivolous litigation and called for deterrence from mechanically filling ill-considered claims. Speaking through Justice J.S. Kheher, the following was observed:

“191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted, with fr