Ravi Kant Sagar v. Smt. Anugya Shaiwal

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. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal- 1 Ashish Naithani J.

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 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal- 2 Ashish Naithani J. 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 submitted that deferring adjudication of the application renders the provision otiose, and that the power under Section 340 Cr.PC. cannot be reduced to a mere post-trial exercise. On these premises, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

10. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- wife, supported the impugned order and submitted that no interference Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal- 3 Ashish Naithani J. is warranted in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. It was submitted that initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC is not mandatory upon mere allegation of falsehood, and the Court must first reach a clear conclusion that deliberate fabrication has occurred and that prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice.

11. Learned counsel contended that the Family Court has rightly observed that such satisfaction can be properly arrived at only after evidence is recorded, including cross-examination of the parties. It was argued the Petitioner seeks to prematurely convert matrimonial litigation into a collateral criminal inquiry, which would derail the proceedings and defeat the very object of the Family Court Act.

12. It was further submitted that the Supreme Court has consistently held that Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires a cautious approach and that prosecution for perjury is warranted only in exceptional circumstances. In the present case, no such extraordinary situation exists. The Respondent’s statements are matters for appreciation during trial and cannot be treated as criminal falsehood at the interlocutory stage.

13. On these premises, learned counsel submitted that the writ petition is misconceived, that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the learned Family Court, and that the present petition deserves to be dismissed. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal- 4 Ashish Naithani J.

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

15. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction or committed a patent illegality resulting in grave injustice. This Court does not sit in review over interlocutory orders merely because another view is possible.

16. The impugned order reflects that the Petitioner’s application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not rejected on merits. The learned Family Court has only deferred consideration to a stage where evidence of the parties becomes available. Section 340 Cr.P.C postulates that before directing prosecution for offences under Sections 191 and 193 of the Penal Code, the Court must form a clear opinion that (i) an offence appears to have been committed in relation to a proceeding before it, and (ii) that initiating prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice.

17. The satisfaction contemplated by Section 340 Cr.P.C cannot be mechanical. Such satisfaction must be founded on cogent material demonstrating deliberate falsehood or conscious fabrication intended to mislead the Court. In matrimonial proceedings where assertions and counter-assertions on financial capacity, income and assets are routinely made, the determination of whether any statement is false to the knowledge of a party ordinarily requires appreciation of evidence and an opportunity of cross-examination. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal- 5 Ashish Naithani J.

18. In the present case, the allegations levelled by the Petitioner relate to the Respondent’s affidavit of assets and liabilities filed in support of her maintenance application. Whether the Respondent’s statements therein are inaccurate, whether such inaccuracy is wilful, and whether it has any bearing on the administration of justice, are issues which can be assessed only after the evidence of the parties is recorded. The learned Family Court has, therefore, rightly opined that the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C should be considered at the appropriate stage of the proceedings.

19. This Court finds no perversity or jurisdictional error in such an approach. Section 340 Cr.P.C does not oblige a Court to initiate prosecution at the threshold of proceedings upon mere allegation of falsehood. On the contrary, premature invocation of Section 340 Cr.P.C has the potential to derail the primary adjudication and convert matrimonial litigation into collateral criminal proceedings, which is neither the object of the statute nor conducive to expeditious disposal.

20. The Petitioner’s apprehension that the Respondent may secure orders on the basis of allegedly incorrect statements does not constitute a ground for invoking Article 227. The Petitioner is at liberty to contest the Respondent’s financial disclosures during trial, to raise all permissible contentions before the Family Court, and to seek appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. At this stage, no case for supervisory interference is made out. Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal- 6 Ashish Naithani J.

21. This Court is satisfied that the learned Family Court has exercised its discretion in accordance with settled principles and that no manifest illegality, procedural irregularity or perversity demonstrated so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. ORDER For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, does not disclose any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the rights of either party before the learned Family Court, which shall proceed to adjudicate the matter strictly in accordance with law. Arti ARTI SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b6 9c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E73 4BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH (Ashish Naithani J.) 15.12.2025 Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal- 7 Ashish Naithani J.