Prosecution for perjury requires the court to be satisfied that it is "expedient in the interest of justice." Such action is reserved for deliberate, conscious falsehoods where conviction is probable, and should not be used to facilitate personal vendetta between litigants.

JUDGMENT :

YASHVIR SINGH RATHOR. J.(Oral)

1. The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 (Annexure P-6), passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridkot, in CIS No.CRM-482-2023, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the material placed on the file.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 09.10.2025 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridkot is based on conjuncture and surmises. The respondent had intentionally and knowingly submitted false statements, affidavits and evidence in a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the Principal Judge had also come to the conclusion that the respondent has submitted false documents and affidavits but it still dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C for initiating the proceedings against respondent for the offences under impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. However, I do not find any force in the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition in hand is liable to be dismissed for the reasons discussed hereinafter.

5. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridkot has come to the conclusion that the petition for divorce moved by Satwant Kaur-wife against her husband-Charanjit Singh, titled Satwant Kaur Vs. Charanjit Singh has been dismissed, as she had given false statements and while forming an opinion whether the respondent should be prosecuted on an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. or not, the Principal Judge, Family Court, Faridkot has observed as under:-

“For that purpose, this Court is still required to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to initiate an inquiry into the offence of false evidence while having regard to the overall factual matrix as well as probable consequences of such prosecution. In this regard reliance can be placed upon Sasikala Pushpa vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2019 (6) SCC 477, wherein it was held that for prosecution under Section 195 read with Section 340 Cr.P.C, pejury must be established. It was further observed that before proceedings to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, the Court must satisfy itself that “it is expedient in the interest of justice." The language in Section 34 shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. In Dhirubhai Mohanbhai Bhanderi vs State of Gujarat: Law Finder Doc Id #2232945, the High Court of Gujarat had observed that the object of makes it clear that before lodging a complaint, it is necessary that Court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint. The mere fact that a person contradictory stand has been taken during the proceedings, by itself, always would not be sufficient to justify the prosecution, even if it appears that the proceeding has been initiated on behalf of a person who alleges that it was not instructed by him, but if it has been without any criminal intent or when anything has been brought on record to show that any harm has been caused to him. Merely on allegations or only to vindicate the personal vendetta, the Court wou