The appeal against a Family Court order under Section 340 Cr.P.C. must be filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, as it supersedes procedures outlined in the Cr.P.C., establishing the High Court as the proper forum.

JUDGMENT :

ARUN KUMAR SINGH DESHWAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Chetan Prakash, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Ajai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Pawan Kumar Dubey, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 and Sri D.P.S. Chauhan, learned AGA for the State.

2. The appellant-applicant has preferred the present criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 10.10.2024 passed by the Learned Principal Judge Family Court, Prayagraj/Allahabad, in Misc. Case No. 414 of 2024, Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 379 BNSS) read with Section 191, 193, 199 and 209 Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

3. Shorn of unnecessary facts, the prosecution's case is that the appellant has filed an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. before the Principal Judge, Family Court, Prayagraj, for maintenance against opposite party no.2. During that proceeding, respondent no.2 had filed an affidavit regarding his income and liability as required in the case of Rajnesh Vs. Neha & Another reported in (2021) 2 SCC 324. Appellant filed an application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 379 BNSS) for conducting a preliminary enquiry to file a complaint against the respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 on the ground that respondent no.2 had filed incorrect and false evidence through his affidavit and respondent nos.3 and 4 also supported that false evidence. The Principal Judge, Family Court, rejected that application vide judgement and order dated 10.10.2024, against which the present appeal has been filed.

4. A preliminary objection was raised by learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the private respondents that against the order passed by the Family Court, there is specific provision of filing an appeal u/s 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (in short 'the Act, 1984') which would prevail under Section 341 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 380 BNSS). Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable as the appellant can file an appeal against the impugned judgment of the Family Court u/s 19 of the Act, 1984.

5. In reply to the above preliminary objection, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is a specific provision under Section-341 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 380 BNSS) for filing appeal against the rejection of the application u/s 340 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 379 BNSS), therefore, merely because the Family Court has passed the order, appeal cannot be said to be not maintainable because Section 19 of the Act, 1984 also provides provision for filing appeal against the order passed by the Family Court.

6. The crux of the matter is whether an appeal against the order u/s 340 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 379 BNSS) passed by the Family Court, should be filed under u/s 19 of the Act, 1984 or u/s 341 Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 380 BNSS). To resolve this, it's pertinent to quote Section 19 of the Act, 1984, which is as follows:

"19. Appeal.—(1) Save as provided in sub-section (2) and notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (5 of 1908) or in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law, an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order, not being an interlocutory order, of a Family Court to the High Court both on facts and on law.

(2) No appeal shall lie from a decree or order passed by the Family Court with the consent of the parties [or from an order passed u