Perjury proceedings should be initiated only when satisfied that the falsehood is deliberate, material, and truly expedient in the interest of justice. Courts must refuse to act as tools for private vendetta or allow parties to settle matrimonial scores through criminal processes, thereby protecting the sanctity of judicial administration.

JUDGMENT :

RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred under Section - 380 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') against order dated 28.10.2025, passed by learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.4, Prayagraj in Criminal Misc. Application No. 71 of 2025 (Shivakant Dubey Vs. Smt. Shikha Dubey (Pandey)), under Section - 379 BNSS, whereby the application filed by appellant under Section - 340 Cr.P.C./379 BNSS, has been rejected.

2. This appeal is being decided finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. Appellant is husband of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has filed a case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C. and in those proceedings she has mentioned the income of appellant as Rs. 80,000/- per month in the affidavit. She has not filed any evidence to support the alleged income. In fact, the monthly income of appellant is Rs. 11,000/- per month. The respondent No.2 has made false averments in the affidavit. At another place she has mentioned the income of appellant as Rs. 1,25,000/- per month. It was submitted that as the respondent No.2 has made false statement in the affidavit thus, a case under Section - 211, 213, 222, 232 BNS was made out but the learned Family Court has rejected the application of appellant in an arbitrary manner. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that impugned order is liable to be quashed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. It was stated that appellant is an advocate having quite long standing and he has concealed his income from agriculture as well as his rental income. It was submitted that merely because the respondent No.2 has mentioned income of appellant as Rs. 80,000/- per month, it was no ground to initiate proceedings under Section - 340 Cr.P.C.. The income of appellant is to be decided by the Family Court on the basis of evidence of the parties. The appellant is adopting delaying tactics to avoid payment of interim maintenance. The case is pending before the Family Court concerned. It was submitted that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

7. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to refer the provisions of the section - 340 Cr.P.C., which reads reads as under :-

"340. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-

(a) record a finding to that effect;

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so t