Delhi High Court
Sh. Ashish Singh vs Pushpa Singh on 13 May, 2025
Author: Jasmeet Singh
Bench: Jasmeet Singh
$~J
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment reserved on: 03.02.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 13.05.2025
+ CRL.M.C. 3151/2018
SH. ASHISH SINGH .....Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
PUSHPA SINGH .....Respondent
Through: Mr. S.S. Rawat, Ms. Supriya Juneja,
Advs. with the Respondent in person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
JUDGMENT
: JASMEET SINGH, J
1. This is a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) to allow the applications under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.,
regarding the offence of cheating and fraud committed by the respondent by
filing false and frivolous affidavits, in the following cases:
A. Case No. CC-326/2017, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.;
B. Case No. H.M.A.-403/2017, under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Hindu
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 1 of 15
11:08:53
Marriage Act, 1955 (“HMA”);
C. Case No. 219/2017, under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C.;
D. Case No. 220/2017, under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C.;
E. F.I.R. No. 713/2011 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC“);
F. Case No. 90/2011, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“PWDV”); and
G. Case No. 413/2016, under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
2. In addition, the petitioner has also prayed for this Court to give directions to
the concerned courts for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned legal
proceedings.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
3. The brief facts of the case as per the petitioner are that on 09.05.2004,
marriage was solemnised between the parties. The marriage lasted for 13
years, during which the respondent frequently left the petitioner, resulting in
them living together for only staggered 10-11 months.
4. In the present case, due to the acrimonious matrimonial relation between the
parties, there exists a long list of disputes between the parties, which are
neither germane nor relevant to the issue in controversy in the petition and
thus, the same are not adverted to.
5. It is stated that when the petitioner refused to give into the demands of the
respondent, the respondent retaliated by filing false cases against him and by
harassing him and his family members.
6. On 17.01.2013, the respondent was granted interim maintenance by the
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 2 of 15
11:08:53
learned MM, Karkardooma, Delhi. It is stated that due to the stress from his
personal life and workplace issues, the petitioner was terminated from
employment on 17.01.2014. Consequently, on 20.05.2014, the petitioner
filed an application under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking to alter or
cancel the said maintenance order. On 15.10.2014, he filed another
application under Section 125(5) of the Cr.P.C. for the cancellation of the
previous order.
7. On 16.11.2015, the petitioner filed his first application under Section 340 of
the Cr.P.C. in maintenance petition, being CC-326/2017, alleging that the
respondent was concealing facts in her affidavit. It is stated that the mother
of the respondent supported the petitioner on the same.
8. On 07.07.2016, the petitioner submitted a second application under Section
340 of the Cr.P.C. in the same maintenance petition, again alleging
concealment of facts by the respondent in her affidavit.
9. On 09.07.2016, he also filed objections against Ex. Petition No. 219/2017,
citing similar concerns about the false claims of the respondent and her
liability for prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C.
10. Subsequently, this Court issued an order in TR.P.(CRL.) 2/2017, directing
the concerned trial court to expedite the case.
11. On 01.11.2017, the petitioner filed objections against Ex. Petition No.
220/2017, citing concealment of facts in the affidavit of the respondent. It is
again stated that the respondent had made false claims and was liable for
prosecution under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
12. Aggrieved in the said legal proceedings, the petitioner has filed the present
petition.
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 3 of 15
11:08:53
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER
Case No. H.M.A.-403/2017, under Section 13(i)(ia) of the Cr.P.C.
13. It is stated that in the said case, the reply of the respondent dated 24.10.2013
is false. In the said reply, the respondent claimed that she wished to hand
over their minor daughter to the petitioner, however alleged that the
petitioner is refusing to accept her. The petitioner contends that this
statement is incorrect and false, as it is the petitioner who is actively seeking
custody of his daughter through the court and the respondent has deliberately
kept his daughter away from him.
Case No. 219/2017, under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C.
14. It is stated that in the said case, the respondent has not approached the courts
with clean hands and has concealed material facts. On 15.10.2014, the
petitioner filed an application under Section 125(5) of the Cr.P.C. for the
cancellation of the previous interim maintenance order. In reply to the said
application, the claims of the respondent are false regarding non-payment of
the maintenance amount in full by the petitioner.
15. Additionally, the respondent has concealed the fact that an appeal is pending
in the Delhi High Court, being Case No. 431/2017 against the order dated
24.04.2017 in Maintenance Petition No. 624/2014.
Case No. 220/2017, under Section 125(3) of the Cr.P.C.
16. It is stated that in the said case, an application under Section 125(5) of the
Cr.P.C. was dismissed by this court based on a false affidavit submitted by
the respondent which concealed the fact that an appeal is pending in the
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 4 of 15
11:08:53
Delhi High Court, being Case No. 431/2017 against the order dated
24.04.2017 in Maintenance Petition No. 624/2014.
Case No. CC-326/2017, under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C.
17. It is stated that the respondent has not been truthful and has concealed
important facts in her affidavit of income submitted to the Court on
24.10.2013. The respondent has concealed:
A. The income of her father, which is relevant to her financial situation
as she stated that her father is bearing the cost of her child‟s education
and her daily expenses.
B. The pending case filed by her under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., being
Case No. C.C.No.-413/2016.
C. She stated that the petitioner was earning Rs.30,000/- per month.
However, the petitioner states that the respondent was aware that he
was terminated from his job and did not mention the same.
D. She stated a monthly expenditure of Rs.30,000/-, however, her
expenditure calculates to Rs.20,300/-. suggesting she is manipulating
figures.
E. She claimed that all household items and jewellery are with the
petitioner in the matrimonial home, despite having received her
stridhan and categorically admitting in the court that there is nothing
due and payable by the petitioner to her in a previous criminal case.
F.I.R. No. 713/2011 under Sections 498-A, 406 and 34 of the IPC
Case No. 90/2011, under Section 12 of the PWDV Act
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 5 of 15
11:08:53
18. The respondent has deposed on 26.09.2011 in the FIR that her father spent
Rs.11,00,000/- on the marriage ceremony.
19. On the other hand, the respondent in her evidence filed on 16.03.2015 for
the DV Petition has stated that her father spent Rs.8,00,000/- on the marriage
ceremony.
20. Thus, the statements of the respondent clearly show two inconsistent figures.
21. Furthermore, the evidence of Mr. Rajender Kumar, who provided
photography and videography services for the marriage, indicated that the
payment was made by the father of the petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
22. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondent, oppose
the present petition.
23. They state that the allegations of the petitioner are that the statements made
in the affidavits and court testimony are false statements which have been
made knowingly and willfully by the respondent and hence, the respondent
committed an offence under Sections 199, 200 and 209 of the IPC. However,
the issue as to whether the respondent made a false statement or not can only
be ascertained once the parties have led their evidence and at the time of
final adjudication of the proceedings.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
24. I have heard the parties and perused the material on record.
25. Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. provides for the power to take cognizance of the
offence of perjury in relation to contempt of lawful authority of public
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 6 of 15
11:08:53
servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to
documents given in evidence. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. empowers the court
to file a complaint for perjury, if it considers such action necessary in the
interest of justice.
26. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:
“340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.–
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or
otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the
interests 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 to do, send the accused in
custody to such Magistrate; and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give
evidence before such Magistrate.
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 7 of 15
11:08:53
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in
respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has
neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of
that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such
complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former
Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of
section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,–
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a
High Court, by such officer of the Court as the
Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of
the Court or by such officer of the Court as the
Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section
195.”
27. The relevant extract of Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:
“195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public
servants, for offences against public justice and for offences
relating to documents given in evidence.–
(1) No Court shall take cognizance–
***
(b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the
following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of
1860), namely, sections 193 to 196 (both
inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive)
and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 8 of 15
11:08:53
committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in
any Court, or
***
except on the complaint in writing of that Court or by such
officer of the Court as that Court may authorise in writing in
this behalf, or of some other Court to which that Court is
subordinate.”
28. The scheme of the above statutory provisions may now be examined.
29. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi
Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370 observed the scope of Section 195 and
340 of the Cr.P.C. as under:
“23. In view of the language used in Section 340 Cr.P.C. the
Court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission
of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), as the Section is
conditioned by the words “Court is of opinion that it is
expedient in the interest of justice.” This shows that such a
course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires
and not in every case. Before filing of the complaint, the Court
may hold a preliminary enquiry and record a finding to the
effect that it is expedient in the interests of justice that enquiry
should be made into any of the offences referred to in Section
195(i)(b). This expediency will normally be judged by the Court
by weighing not the magnitude of injury suffered by the person
affected by such forgery or forged document, but having regard
to the effect or impact, such commission of offence has upon
administration of justice. It is possible that such forged
document or forgery may cause a very serious or substantial
injury to a person in the sense that it may deprive him of a veryDigitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 9 of 15
11:08:53
valuable property or status or the like, but such document may
be just a piece of evidence produced or given in evidence in
Court, where voluminous evidence may have been adduced and
the effect of such piece of evidence on the broad concept of
administration of justice may be minimal. In such
circumstances, the Court may not consider it expedient in the
interest of justice to make a complaint. The broad view of
clause (b)(ii), as canvassed by learned counsel for the
appellants, would render the victim of such forgery or forged
document remedyless. Any interpretation which leads to a
situation where a victim of a crime is rendered remedyless, has
to be discarded.”
24. There is another consideration which has to be kept in
mind. Sub- section (1) of Section 340 Cr.P.C. contemplates
holding of a preliminary enquiry. Normally, a direction for
filing of a complaint is not made during the pendency of the
proceeding before the Court and this is done at the stage when
the proceeding is concluded and the final judgment is
rendered.”
30. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Amarsang Nathaji v. Hardik Harshadbhai
Patel & Ors., (2017) 1 SCC 113, further held as follows:
“6. The mere fact that a person has made a contradictory
statement in a judicial proceeding is not by itself always
sufficient to justify a prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of
the Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) (hereinafter referred to as
“IPC“); but it must be shown that the defendant has
intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial
proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of
using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. Even
after the above position has emerged also, still the court has to
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 10 of 15
11:08:53
form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to
initiate an inquiry into the offences of false evidence and
offences against public justice and more specifically referred to
in Section 340(1) CrPC, having regard to the overall factual
matrix as well as the probable consequences of such a
prosecution. (See K.T.M.S. Mohd. v. Union of India [K.T.M.S.
Mohd. v. Union of India, (1992) 3 SCC 178 : 1992 SCC (Cri)
572] ). The court must be satisfied that such an inquiry is
required in the interests of justice and appropriate in the facts
of the case.
7. In the process of formation of opinion by the court that it is
expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be
made into, the requirement should only be to have a prima facie
satisfaction of the offence which appears to have been
committed. It is open to the court to hold a preliminary inquiry
though it is not mandatory. In case, the court is otherwise in a
position to form such an opinion, that it appears to the court
that an offence as referred to under Section 340 CrPC has been
committed, the court may dispense with the preliminary inquiry.
Even after forming an opinion as to the offence which appears
to have been committed also, it is not mandatory that a
complaint should be filed as a matter of course. (See Pritish v.
State of Maharashtra [Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 1
SCC 253 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 140] .)”
31. In the recent judgment of Narender Kumar Srivastava v. State of Bihar &
Ors., (2019) 3 SCC 318, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has held as under:
“18. This Court in Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam [Chajoo Ram
v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 331] ,
held that the prosecution under Section 195 CrPC could be
initiated only by the sanction of the court and only if the same
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 11 of 15
11:08:53
appears to be deliberate and conscious. It emphatically held as
under: (SCC p. 779, para 7)“7. The prosecution for perjury should be
sanctioned by courts only in those cases where the
perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious
and the conviction is reasonably probable or
likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing
false affidavits is an evil which must be effectively
curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution
for perjury too readily and too frequently without
due care and caution and on inconclusive and
doubtful material defeats its very purpose.
Prosecution should be ordered when it is
considered expedient in the interests of justice to
punish the delinquent and not merely because
there is some inaccuracy in the statement which
may be innocent or immaterial. There must be
prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a
matter of substance and the court should be
satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the
charge.”
32. Based on the principles established by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in various
decisions, some of which are referenced above, the following conclusions
can be drawn:
A. Before lodging a complaint under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C., the
court must determine whether a party has intentionally provided a
false statement or fabricated evidence during judicial proceedings,
which has impacted the administration of justice.
B. The decision to initiate an inquiry into false evidence is the judicial
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 12 of 15
11:08:53
discretion of the court, which must consider whether it is expedient
and in the interests of justice. A preliminary inquiry is not always
necessary and the court can proceed without it if sufficient
information is available to form an opinion.
C. Even if a prima facie case of an offence is established, the court must
assess whether filing a complaint is expedient in the interest of justice.
This assessment focuses on the impact of the alleged offence on the
administration of justice rather than the extent of injury suffered by
the affected party.
D. Generally, directions for filing a complaint are issued after the
conclusion of proceedings and the rendering of a final judgment.
33. In the instant case, the petitioner has filed the present petition requesting this
Court to draw up a proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. on the basis
of concealment of material facts and filing of false and contradictory
statements by the respondent in different legal proceedings pending in
different courts.
34. A perusal of Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. reproduced above shows that a Court
is empowered to initiate an inquiry into specific offences mentioned in
Section 195(1)(b), which appears to have been committed in or in relation to
a proceeding in „that Court‟ itself or concerning documents or evidence
presented in a proceeding in „that Court‟ itself. Further, it empowers this
Court to initiate such an inquiry, in case no action is taken by „that Court‟,
the subordinate court. Further, it is settled that the court is not bound to
make a complaint regarding commission of offence and the said course will
be adopted only if the court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 13 of 15
11:08:53
interests of justice to do so and not in every case.
35. Hence, I am of the view that the petitioner has already made the applications
and the same are pending adjudication before the respective Courts. The
applications of the petitioner are yet to be decided through pleadings and
evidence of the parties.
36. I am also of the opinion that the perjury proceedings are serious in nature
and entail a punishment of imprisonment as well as fine and cannot be
initiated in a casual and routine manner.
37. The claims of the petitioner are primarily based on inconsistencies in the
affidavits and the court testimonies of the respondent, as interpreted by the
petitioner, rather than clear and cogent evidence of deceit and malafide
against the respondent.
38. A perusal of Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) shows that directions for filing a
complaint are generally issued after the conclusion of proceedings and the
rendering of a final judgment. In the present case, the respondent is yet to be
confronted with her affidavits to elucidate her response in this regard. Thus,
entertaining the present petition at this stage would tantamount to basing
conclusions upon surmises and conjectures rather than there being any clear,
categorical and clinching reliable material on record.
CONCLUSION
39. In light of the above findings, I am of the view that the allegations made by
the petitioner in the present petition lack sufficient merit. The petitioner has
not been able to show that the respondent has acted with malafides and the
fact that she made any false statement or false claim in the respective courts
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 14 of 15
11:08:53
that would warrant the prosecution under Sections 199, 200 and 209 of the
IPC.
40. For the said reasons, the trial court is directed to take expeditious steps to
dispose of the legal proceedings pending between the petitioner and the
respondent.
41. The petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to proceed in
accordance with law.
42. Nothing stated hereinabove shall tantamount to any expression on the merits
or demerits of the case.
JASMEET SINGH, J
MAY 13, 2025 / shanvi
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Digitally Signed
By:MAYANK
Signing Date:14.05.2025CRL.M.C. 3151/2018 Page 15 of 15
11:08:53
[ad_1]
Source link