[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Karan Chandrashekar vs Mrs. Divya Karan Chandrashekar on 27 January, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4302
CRL.RP No. 1760 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1760 OF 2025
(397(Cr.PC) / 438(BNSS)-)
BETWEEN:
MR. KARAN CHANDRASHEKAR
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
S/O MR. A. CHANDRASHEKAR
RESIDING AT K5, 480, 13TH MAIN
3RD BLOCK KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034
KARNATAKA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI KBS MANIAN, ADV., FOR
SRI AZHAR ALI FAROOQI, ADV.)
AND:
MRS. DIVYA KARAN CHANDRASHEKAR
Digitally
signed by AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
NANDINI M D/O MR PRADEEP LAL
S RESIDING AT 161, 6TH CROSS
Location: 1ST MAIN, ST BED LAYOUT
HIGH KORAMANGALA 1ST BLOCK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 034
KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRATHIMA S K.,ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS)
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED
01.02.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE LXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, MAYO HALL UNIT, AT BANGALORE IN CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.25286/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4302
CRL.RP No. 1760 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. This criminal revision petition under Section 438
R/w Section 442 of BNSS 2023 is filed by the petitioner -
husband with the prayer to set aside the order dated
01.02.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal No.25286 of 2024 by
Court of LXXII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Mayo Hall,
Bengaluru and the order dated 25.07.2024 passed in
Crl.Misc.No.157 of 2023 by the Court of MMTC-I Court, Mayo
Hall, Bengaluru.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. Respondent - wife has filed petition before the
jurisdictional Court of Magistrate at Bangalore under Section 12
of the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
(for short, 'PWDV Act') and also has filed an application in the
said proceedings under Section 20 R/w Section 23 of the PWDV
Act seeking certain interim reliefs. The petitioner - husband has
filed an application before the Trial Court in Crl.Misc.No.157 of
NC: 2026:KHC:4302
HC-KAR
2023 under Section 191, 193, 199, 209 of IPC r/w Section 340
of Cr.P.C, with a prayer to proceed against the respondent in
accordance with law for having committed perjury. Respondent
- wife had filed objection to the said application and opposed
the prayer made in the application. The Trial court, vide the
order impugned dated 25.07.2024, had rejected the application
filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C,
and the said order was confirmed by the Appellate Court in
Criminal Appeal No.25286 of 2024 vide the order impugned
dated 01.02.2025. Aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders,
petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner having reiterated
the grounds urged in the petition submits that the Trial Court
has dismissed the application with observation that the same
was premature. If that is so, the Trial Court ought not to have
considered the merits of the application. He submits that
petitioner intends to file appropriate application under Section
340 of Cr.P.C, against the respondent at a later stage, if need
arises, and therefore it may be clarified that the observations
made by the Courts below in the order impugned will not come
NC: 2026:KHC:4302
HC-KAR
in the way of the Trial Court considering the fresh application
on its merits in accordance with law.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has
argued in support of the orders impugned and submits that
Courts below were justified in dismissing the application filed
on behalf of the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C,. The
respondent has not suppressed any facts nor she has made any
false declarations either in her affidavit or in her statement of
assets and liabilities submitted before the Trial Court. She
accordingly prays to dismiss the petition.
6. The Trial Court, while dismissing the application
filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, with a
prayer to proceed against the respondent for having committed
perjury, has observed in paragraph no.27 as follows:-
"This court is of considered view that a full
fledged trail on merit is required to ascertain the
truth. If this application was registered and
cognizance was taken without there being any
documents it will not only lead to multiplicity of
proceedings and unnecessary wastage of precious
Court time, but also cause hardship to the
litigant. On mere suspicion this court cannot
NC: 2026:KHC:4302
HC-KAR
proceed against petitioner. Considering the fact
that at this juncture, the respondent No.1 has not
placed any thing on record, to establish that
petitioner has on oath falsely submitted details in
Assets & Liabilities, this court hereby decline to
initiate perjury application."
7. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that Trial Court
has refused to entertain the application filed by the petitioner
under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, on the ground that the same is
premature. However, the order impugned would show that in
the earlier paras of the order impugned passed by the Trial
Court, certain observations are also made with regard to the
merits of the case. The Appellate Court has confirmed the order
of the Trial Court and has dismissed the appeal. In my
considered opinion, since the Trial Court has refused to
entertain the application of the petitioner filed under Section
340 of Cr.P.C, on the ground that at this stage, it is premature
since the parties are yet to place the documentary evidence on
record, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court was not justified
in making any observations touching the merits of the
application. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that
this Criminal Revision petition is required to be dismissed with
NC: 2026:KHC:4302
HC-KAR
an observation that in the event if petitioner files a fresh
application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C, against the
respondent, such application shall be considered on its merits
without being influenced by any observations made by the
Courts below in the orders impugned herein.
8. Accordingly, the following:-
ORDER
(i) Criminal Revision Petition is dismissed.
(ii) In the event the petitioner files any fresh
application against the respondent before
the Trial Court under Section 340 of
Cr.P.C, such an application shall be
considered on its merits without being
influenced by any observations passed by
the Courts below in the order's
impugned.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
