The court upheld that allegations under Section 340 CrPC require evidence review before prosecution can be initiated, ensuring matrimonial proceedings are not disrupted.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India has been instituted by the Petitioner, Ravi Kant Sagar, assailing the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, in Case No. 671 of 2023 (Ravi Kant Sagar v. Smt. Anugya Shaiwal). By the said order, the learned Family Court disposed of Paper No. 37-Kha, an application filed by the Petitioner under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , observing that the application shall be considered at the stage of final disposal of the

case.

2. The proceedings before the learned Family Court arise out of a matrimonial dispute between the parties. The Petitioner has instituted a petition seeking the dissolution of the marriage. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Respondent-wife moved an application for interim maintenance and filed an affidavit in support thereof. According to the Petitioner, the said affidavit contains material contradictions and deliberate false statements relating to her

income and employment.

3. Alleging that such false statements amount to fabrication of evidence and commission of offences punishable under Sections 191 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code , the Petitioner filed Paper No. 37- Kha before the learned Family Court, praying for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Petitioner asserted that the alleged falsehood has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and that it is expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute the Respondent at this stage.

4. The learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated 19.07.2024, declined to entertain the Petitioner’s Section 340 CrPC application at the interlocutory stage. The learned Court observed that the question whether any false statement has been made with intent to influence the outcome of judicial proceedings is a matter that can be appropriately considered after evidence is led by the parties and the case is finally heard.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227, seeking quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the learned Family Court to decide the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application forthwith.

6. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted that the impugned order suffers from a patent error of jurisdiction. It was contended that once material indicating commission of offences of perjury and fabrication of evidence is placed before the Court, the learned Family Court is obliged to form a prima facie opinion on such allegations at the earliest opportunity and cannot defer consideration of the application to the stage of final hearing.

7. Learned counsel urged that the Respondent has deliberately suppressed her true income, misrepresented facts concerning her employment and furnished false statements with the intent to obtain inflated interim maintenance. It was argued that allowing such falsehood to remain on record without immediate action undermines the purity of judicial proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued, the expression “expedient in the interest of justice” appearing in Section 340 CrPC mandates timely intervention where material before the Court reveals prima facie commission of offences under Chapter XI of the Penal Code. Learned counsel submitted that the Family Court misdirected itself by treating the application as premature, thereby permitting the Respondent to obtain orders on the basis of allegedly fabricated evidence.

9. It was further submitte