The court upheld the rejection of prosecution under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, emphasizing that false statements not made in custodia legis do not warrant action unless they significantly impact justice.

ORDER

1. This petition under section 482 read with 341 of Cr.PC, 1973 and sections 19(4) of the Family Courts Act is filed assailing the order dated 04/02/2023 passed by Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam in M.J.C.R. no. 351/2018, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under section 340 of Cr.P.C was rejected.

2. It is stated in the petition that petitioner was married to respondent Vaishali on 20/02/2018 according to hindu customs and rituals at Ratlam. The respondent left her matrimonial home without any reasonable cause and filed petition for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam. During pendency of hearing of the petition, the respondent filed a false affidavit dated 21/09/2021 for disclosure of assets in compliance with the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal no. 730/2020 ( Rajnesh Vs. Neha and another ).

3. The petitioner objected to the facts stated in the affidavit by filing an application under section 151 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the respondent filed subsequent affidavit on 10/02/2022.

4. The petitioner again filed an application under section 151 of Cr.P.C objecting the statement in affidavit and requested for initiation of criminal proceedings under section 195(1) (b) of Cr.P.C. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam decided the application vide order dated 10/02/2022 concluding that the initiation of criminal proceedings will be considered after recording of evidence, if needed.

5. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 10/02/2022, the petitioner filed Criminal Revision no. 1256/2022. The Revisional Court dismissed the petition concluding that the proceeding under section 340 of Cr.P.C can be initiated only on the basis of the evidence after trial.

6. On conclusion of the evidence, the petitioner filed another detailed application under section 340 of Cr.P.C, inter-alia, alleging that the respondent has submitted false affidavit in the Court and given false evidence, therefore, the respondent be prosecuted for forgery.

7. Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, vide order dated 04/02/2023, rejected the said application under section 340 of Cr.P.C.

8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order dated 04/02/2023, present petition is filed on following grounds-:

i) Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Ratlam has erred in law and facts in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

ii) The respondent had deliberately suppressed the fact about her bank account. She has also suppressed the details of the account, in which, she has received salary under the National Health Mission.

iii) The respondent did not disclose information about her income tax return.

iv) The C.M.H.O, Ratlam has informed that salary has been deposited in the account of the respondent and also deduction of TDS.

v) The respondent was working as a doctor under the National Health Mission from 21/01/2021 to 10/02/2022. She has made false statement on oath. Further, she has made various false statements in her evidence.

vi) The impugned order is perverse and bad in law and contrary to the evidence on record.

9. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order dated 04/02/2022 be set aside and the application under section 340 of Cr.P.C filed by the petitioner be allowed and prosecution under section 195(1)

(b) read with section 340 of Cr.P.C be initiated against the respondent.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds mentioned in the petition, contends th