Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ashima Garg vs Anshul Gupta on 1 July, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
129
CRM-M-30560-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: July 1st, 2024
Ashima Garg
.....Petitioner
Versus
Anshul Gupta
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Ranjeet K. Jaswal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.
The instant application/petition has been filed under
Sections 482 and 340 read with Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. for initiation
of criminal proceedings under Sections 191, 193, 199 and 209 of the
IPC against the respondent for filing a false income affidavit before this
Court in CR No.6440 of 2016.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner (wife) contends that she
had initially filed an application before the Family Court in Gurugram
seeking maintenance from the respondent-husband under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as 'HMA'), which came
to be dismissed by the learned Family Court without calling for an
income affidavit from the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner
approached this Court by way of a revision petition, CR No.6440 of
2016, challenging the aforementioned order, and during the pendency
of proceedings before this Court, the respondent submitted a false
income affidavit dated 14.10.2021. In support, learned counsel has
drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit Annexure P-1.
CRM-M-30560-2024 (O&M) -2-
3. Learned counsel has further submitted that during the
pendency of the aforementioned revision petition, petitioner was
granted monthly maintenance under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. by a
Family Court in Delhi. Hence, she did not pursue the aforementioned
revision petition before this Court, which came to be disposed of as not
pressed. Learned counsel has still further argued that subsequently, it
came to the notice and knowledge of the petitioner that the respondent
had intentionally furnished false information with respect to his
employment, salary, bank accounts, assets and liabilities in the income
affidavit (Annexure P-1) with an oblique motive to reduce his
maintenance obligation towards the petitioner and, therefore, in the
circumstances, the respondent deserves to be tried for offences under
Sections 191, 193, 199 and 209 of the IPC.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused
the relevant material on record.
5. No doubt, furnishing false evidence and filing false
affidavit are serious offences, which must be effectively curbed,
however, at the same time, initiating prosecution for perjury too readily
or frequently without due care and caution, especially when the
evidence is inconclusive or doubtful, should be frowned upon as the
same undermines the judicial process. Prosecution should be ordered
only when it is expedient in the interest of justice to punish the
delinquent. A high threshold for perjury prosecution, requiring clear
evidence must be evident. It would be apposite to refer to the
observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Aarish Asgar
Qureshi Versus Fareed Ahmed Qureshi and another 2019 (18) SCC
172, with respect to proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
CRM-M-30560-2024 (O&M) -3-
which are as under:-
7) The law under Section 340 on initiating proceedings has
been laid down in several of our judgments. Thus in Chajoo
Ram vs. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 774, this Court, in
para 7, stated:
"7. ... 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."
6. Thus, what can also be culled out from the aforementioned
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court is that a careful and balanced
approach is required while dealing with prosecution for perjury and it
should be only in exceptional circumstances that proceedings under
Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. should be initiated. The proceedings can
only be initiated if the Court believes that a party has intentionally
committed perjury to gain a favourable order. Such severe actions, like
prosecution under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. should serve the broader
interest of justice and must not be exploited for personal vendetta,
especially in matrimonial disputes.
7. Adverting to the instant case, admittedly, the affidavit
(Annexure P-1) in question dates back to the year 2021, and still
further, it is also a matter of record, and as not disputed by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner did not contest, much less even
bring to the attention of the Court during the pendency of the revision
CRM-M-30560-2024 (O&M) -4-
petition i.e. CR No.6440 of 2016, about the alleged false information
furnished by the respondent in his affidavit. Even otherwise, no order
much less favourable was passed by this Court as the revision petition
was dismissed as not pressed pursuant to a request made by the
petitioner herself.
8. As a sequel to the above, this Court does not find any merit
in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. The instant petition, therefore, stands dismissed.
July 1st, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
