Delhi High Court
Subhash Kumar Singh vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. on 25 February, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision:25th February, 2025
+ CRL.REV.P.(MAT.) 5/2025
SUBHASH KUMAR SINGH
S/o Late Jagnarayan Singh .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tej Pratap, Advocate.
versus
1. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DEL
Through SHO, PS Madhu Vihar,
Delhi-110092 ....Respondent No.1
2. MS. JYOTI SINGH ALIAS JYOTI TIWARI
D/o S.N. Tiwari ...Respondent No. 2
3. AAYAN PRATAP SINGH/AAYANSH PRATAP
S/o Subhash Kumar Singh ...Respondent No. 3
Through: Ms. Meenakshi Dahiya, APP for the
State.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T (oral)
CRL.M.A.6062/2025 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of.
CRL.M.A. 6061/2025 (under Section 379 of BNSS)
3. An Application under Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'B.N.S.S.') (Section 340 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') has
been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2, Ms. Jyoti Singh @ Jyoti
Tiwari against the Petitioner for the act of Perjury under Section
227/228/229 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Section 191, 192,
193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860).
4. It is submitted in the Application that the Petitioner had made a false
Statement on Oath in Paragraph No. M at Page No. 27 of the Crl.Rev.Pet.
(MAT) No. 5/2025, titled Satish Kumar Singh vs. The State (Govt of NCT of
Delhi) & Ors., filed before this Court. It was stated that the learned Family
Court has not considered that he has dependent parents to look after and also
a sister, who has bad health and he has to spend a good amount of money.
The Petition is supported along with an Affidavit of the Petitioner.
5. It is asserted that the mother of the Petitioner had died on 10.07.2013
and father had died on 08.01.2019 despite which false averments have been
made in the Revision Petition with the sole intent of misleading the Court
while considering the amount of maintenance to be granted to the
Respondent.
6. It is further submitted that this is not an isolated or one-off attempt to
conceal the material facts to seek a relief in a manner intended, by
overreaching this Court. It is a deliberate pattern of conduct designed to
subvert the judicial proceedings. In a previously filed Complaint Case No.
6016/2022 before the Court at Ranchi, Jharkhand and in Writ Petition
bearing W.P.(Crl) No. 58/2023 and W.P.(Crl) No. 696/2024 before the High
Court of Jharkhand, an attempt to implicate the Respondent No. 2 and her
family members in false and frivolous criminal litigations, have failed.
Complaint Case No. 6016/2022 was quashed by the Hon'ble Jharkhand
High Court vide Order dated 24.07.2023 and the two Writ Petitions bearing
W.P. (Crl) No. 58/2023 and W.P.(Crl) No. 696/2024, have been dismissed
vide Order dated 06.12.2024. Further permission had been granted to the
Respondent No. 2, to initiate the appropriate proceedings against the
Petitioner for using derogatory and scandalous remarks vide Order dated
13.12.2024 in Cr. MP No. 3560/2023, in the Revision filed by the
Respondent No. 2.
7. It is claimed that the Petitioner in order to harass the Respondent No.
2 and her parents, has been filing false and frivolous cases with concocted
stories before various Authorities as is manifested from the litigations,
which was the subject matter of the present Petitions before the Hon'ble
Jharkhand High Court.
8. In continuation of his design, false Statements have been made in the
Revision Petition of his parents being dependent when in fact the mother
had died on 10.07.2013 and the father had died on 08.01.2019. It is only
done with clear intention to mislead the Court and get the relief. The
Petitioner has been doing Forum Shopping and attempted to choose Courts
or jurisdictions that were perceived by him to be favourable to his interest.
Regardless of the actual merits of the case, it is submitted that the action
under Section 379 of the B.N.S.S. for perjury, be initiated against the
Petitioner.
9. Submissions heard and the record perused.
10. It is pertinent to observe that this is one of the many litigations
ongoing between the Petitioner/husband and the Respondent No. 2/wife.
Their matrimonial relationship has gone sour and has manifested itself in
multiple litigations initiated by both the parties.
11. The learned Judge, Family Court had granted maintenance under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. vide ex-parte Judgment dated 01.03.2024 in the sum
of Rs.30,000/- per month to the daughter while declining the maintenance to
the Respondent No. 2. Thereafter, the present Revision Petition was filed by
the Petitioner/husband, to challenge the Order dated 01.03.2024. In this
Revision Petition, it was mentioned by him in the grounds of challenge in
Paragraph (M) that his parents are dependent and in addition, he spends a lot
of money on his ailing sister.
12. The perusal of the Revision Petition shows that though in Paragraph
(M), it has been stated by the Petitioner that his parents are dependent upon
him, but it is not denied that the mother and father had expired in 2013 and
2019 respectively, to the knowledge of the Respondent No. 2. The Memo of
Parties in the Revision Petition as well as the supporting Affidavit, indicates
the name of father as "Late Jagnarayan Singh" thereby indicating that the
submissions made in Paragraph (M), was due to inadvertence. There can be
no intent to mislead the Court or to get a favourable Order in his favour.
13. It is also pertinent to observe that the Revision Petition has been
withdrawn by the Petitioner. It is on record that no undue benefit has been
drawn by the Petitioner. Moreover, the initiation of Perjury proceedings
under Section 379 of B.N.S.S., is in extreme circumstances where there has
been an intentional false statement made to mislead the Court or to get
undue benefit. In the present case, none of these circumstances have been
established and the proceedings under Section 379 of B.N.S.S., cannot be
used to settle personal vendetta between the parties.
14. There is no merit in the present Application, which is hereby
dismissed.
15. The Application is disposed of accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 25, 2025/RS
