SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Saturday, August 30, 2025
Printed For: Anand Vardhan Shrivastava
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————–
2024 SCC OnLine P&H 12480
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh (BEFORE HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.)
Surinder Singh … Appellant;
Versus
State of Punjab and Others … Respondents.
CRA-S-2546-2023 (O&M)
Decided on July 23, 2024, [Reserved on: 22.07.2024]
Advocate who appeared in this case :
Mr. Dhiraj Chawla, Advocate and Mr. Akshit Dhiman, Advocate for the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.:— The present appeal has been preferred under Section 341 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) against judgment dated 27.04.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Tarn Taran, whereby the application moved by the appellant under Section 340 read with 195 Cr. P.C. was disposed of.
2. Briefly, the facts are that the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 2 was solemnized on 06.02.1977 and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock. They were granted a divorce on mutual consent on 04.09.1985. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 (daughter) filed an application seeking maintenance on the ground that they have no source of income. Consequently, learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tarn Taran granted Rs. 7,000/- as interim maintenance to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 19.01.2018 (Annexure A-5). Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred a revision, which was allowed vide order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure A
10) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran. Respondent No. 2 concealed the fact that she was a retired government employee and was receiving pension as well as other benefits. Accordingly, the appellant preferred an application under Section 340 Cr. P.C., which was disposed of, in view of the bar under Section 195 Cr. P.C. as well as for not being expedient in the interest of justice vide impugned order dated 27.04.2023.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant, inter alia, contends that respondent No. 2 is retired from Civil Hospital, Karion i.e. Health Department and receives Rs. 25,000/- per month as pension and she also received retiral benefits amounting to about Rs. 7,00,000/-.
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 2 Saturday, August 30, 2025
Printed For: Anand Vardhan Shrivastava
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Moreover, respondent No. 2 not only has a house of her own but also has moveable and immoveable properties. However, in her affidavit qua income, assets and liabilities, she has indicated that she has no independent source of income. Further still, respondent No. 2 has categorically admitted in her cross-examination that she receives Rs. 17,000/- per month as pension along with other retiral benefits like gratuity, leave encashment, GPF etc. As such, learned Court below has grossly erred in disposing of the application dated 08.10.2018 under Section 340 Cr. P.C., as a clear case of perjury to mislead the Court, has been made out against respondent No. 2.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and after perusing the record of the case with his able assistance, it is evident that the order dated 19.01.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Tarn Taran granting interim maintenance to respondent No. 2 has already been set aside vide order dated 17.07.2019 (Annexure P-10) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran.
5. This Court discussed the matter of invoking Section 340 Cr. P.C. in proceedings arising from matrimonial disputes in extenso in Monika v. State of Haryana in CRR(F)-462-2024 decided on 02.04.2024, wherein the following guiding principles were enunciated:
“22. Thus, keeping in view the judicial precedents and relevant provisions of law, the following guiding principles are laid down for invoking the provisions of Section 340 Cr. P.C. in matrimonial cases:
(i) There must be sufficient material available on record to indicate conspicuous and intentional nature of the alleged falsehood and mere inaccuracy or misstatement would remain inadequate for launching such prosecution.
(ii) The formation of a prima facie opinion by the Court that such prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice and, appropriate in view of the facts of the case is sine qua non. (iii) There must be a deliberately and consciously made statement which is found to be false after comparing it with unimpeachable evidence, documentary or otherwise.
(iv) The Court must only sanction prosecution for perjury only in cases where it appears that conviction is reasonably probable and breaches the threshold for the charge of deliberate and conscious falsehood.
(v) The Court must consider the magnitude of the obstruction caused by the alleged offence to administration of justice. It must also be seen if such falsehood has any impact on the outcome of the case.
(vi) The proceedings for perjury cannot be launched in a mechanical manner, at the ipse dixit of an estranged spouse if
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 3 Saturday, August 30, 2025
Printed For: Anand Vardhan Shrivastava
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————–
plausible explanation has been provided for making such omission or misstatement. The failure to exercise due care and caution can be visited upon by imposing cost on the delinquent.
(vii) As perjury is an offence against public justice, the Court will act as the complainant, in order to preserve the purity of the judicial process. No party can be allowed to abuse the process of Court as an instrument of oppression and cause needless harassment to the other party, motivated purely by personal spite.
(viii) The order passed on application under Section 340 Cr. P.C. must reflect application of mind and satisfy the objective standards of reason and justice as it has the potential to affect the liberty of a citizen.”
6. The object of Section 340 Cr. P.C. is to ascertain whether any offence affecting the administration of justice has been committed in relation to any proceeding before any Court and it would be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate prosecution qua the same. Since the expression “Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice” is used in Section 340 Cr. P.C., the following become the two essential pre-conditions for invoking this provision:
(i) The material produced before the Court must be sufficient for the formation of prima facie opinion that inquiry into an offence referred to in clause (b)(i) of sub-Section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P.C. as alleged in the complaint, is necessary.
(ii) The Court must record a finding that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence.
7. As such, recording of the opinion by the Court that the initiation of such proceedings is expedient in the interest of justice, is indispensable. However, mechanical and frequent invocation of provisions of Section 340 Cr. P.C. defeats its very object.
8. A perusal of the impugned order dated 27.04.2023 indicates that the appellant has filed a separate application to recover Rs. 49,000/- received by respondent No. 2 as interim maintenance. In fact, respondent No. 2 has already returned the said amount along with a compensation of Rs. 20,000/-. In view of the above, this Court finds no reason to initiate proceedings under Section 340 Cr. P.C. against respondent No. 2 as the same would not be expedient in the interest of justice. Furthermore, learned Court below has duly recorded a well
reasoned opinion, which does not merit interference.
9. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed and impugned order dated 27.04.2023 passed by learned Principal Judge, Family Court,
SCC Online Web Edition, © 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 4 Saturday, August 30, 2025
Printed For: Anand Vardhan Shrivastava
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2025 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————–
Tarn Taran is upheld.
10. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.
