IMPORTANT POINT
Inaccuracies in statements do not constitute perjury; deliberate falsehood and mens rea must be established for action under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant Mubashir Ali against the order dated 24.1.2024 passed by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No. 1192 of 2020 under Section 340 Cr.P.C. whereby the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. moved by the appellant has been rejected.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and the learned AGA and perused the entire record.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that a Case No. 545 of 2019 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was preferred by the respondent no. 2 - Smt. Muniba Faridi, wife of the appellant alongwith supporting affidavit which is pending before the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 2, Kanpur Nagar. The appellant moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Case No. 1192 of 2022 wherein an application no. 3 alongwith affidavit no. 4 was moved by the appellant/husband alleging that the aforesaid case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has been filed by Smt. Muniba Faridi/respondent no. 2 on the basis of wrong and false averments. Smt. Muniba Faridi has made a deliberate concealment of facts by mentioning that she alongwith her son is totally dependent upon her parents and brother and it has also been concealed that she is gainfully employed as a teacher in Seth Anandram Jaipuriya School, Kanpur Nagar and when the said facts were disclosed by the appellant/husband Mubashir Ali in his counter affidavit, only then respondent no. 2 - Smt. Muniba Faridi by way of filling rejoinder affidavit admitted her high educational status in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 of the same. It is also submitted that when the fact of extra marital relation of respondent no. 2 - Smt. Muniba Faridi with one Nabil Khan @ Nazil Khan was brought on surface, it was denied in the rejoinder affidavit by his wife Smt. Muniba Faridi. Hence, an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was moved by the husband Mubashir Ali to take proper action against the wife Smt. Muniba Faridi for her deliberate concealment of material facts.

4. On the said application, objection was invited by the Court and respondent no. 2 - Smt. Muniba Faridi/wife by filing her objection explained the alleged facts and she admitted that she was working as teacher in Seth Anandram Jaipuriya School and was earning Rs. 22,000/- and further she denied for having any extra marital relation with Nabil Khan rather claimed him to be her cousin. She further explained that she never mentioned anywhere in her pleadings that she was unemployed.

5. The Court concerned proceeded to hear both the parties and found that no offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.P.C. was committed by the respondent no. 2 - Smt. Muniba Faridi, as alleged in the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and prima facie it was found that no forgery has been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court or in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in the Court, which was custodia legis. The trial court recorded a finding that there is no need to apply the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. and to make any enquiry in the instant matter. The trial court also referred the decisions in Iqbal Marwah and another vs. Minakshi Marwah and another, 2005 (4) FTC 370 and Sachchidanand Singh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1998 SC 1121 and on the basis of the law promulgated in the aforesaid decisions it also opined that for the application of the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. it is mandatory that the offence must be committed with reference to a document when it is kept in custody of a Court and since it is not so in this matter, the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. deserves to be rejected. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, the application moved by the appellant was rejected by the Court concerned and it was furt