Ravi Kant Sagar vs Smt. Anugya Shaiwal on 15 December, 2025

2025:UHC:11154

Judgment Reserved on : 26.11.2025
Judgment Delivered on : 15.12.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024

Ravi Kant Sagar ......Petitioner

Vs.

Smt. Anugya Shaiwal .....Respondent

Presence: Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for Petitioner.
Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel, for Respondent.

Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.

The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been instituted by the Petitioner, Ravi Kant Sagar, assailing
the order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge,
Family Court, Dehradun, in Case No. 671 of 2023 (Ravi Kant Sagar v.
Smt. Anugya Shaiwal). By the said order, the learned Family Court
disposed of Paper No. 37-Kha, an application filed by the Petitioner
under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, observing that
the application shall be considered at the stage of final disposal of the
case.

2. The proceedings before the learned Family Court arise out of a
matrimonial dispute between the parties. The Petitioner has instituted
a petition seeking the dissolution of the marriage. During the
pendency of the proceedings, the Respondent-wife moved an
application for interim maintenance and filed an affidavit in support
thereof. According to the Petitioner, the said affidavit contains
material contradictions and deliberate false statements relating to her
income and employment.

1
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal-

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11154

3. Alleging that such false statements amount to fabrication of
evidence and commission of offences punishable under Sections 191
and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, the Petitioner filed Paper No. 37-
Kha before the learned Family Court, praying for initiation of
proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The Petitioner asserted that the
alleged falsehood has resulted in a miscarriage of justice and that it is
expedient in the interest of justice to prosecute the Respondent at this
stage.

4. The learned Family Court, by the impugned order dated
19.07.2024, declined to entertain the Petitioner's Section 340 CrPC
application at the interlocutory stage. The learned Court observed that
the question whether any false statement has been made with intent to
influence the outcome of judicial proceedings is a matter that can be
appropriately considered after evidence is led by the parties and the
case is finally heard.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner has invoked the
supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227, seeking
quashing of the impugned order and a direction to the learned Family
Court to decide the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application forthwith.

6. Mr. Sagar Kothari, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submitted
that the impugned order suffers from a patent error of jurisdiction. It
was contended that once material indicating commission of offences
of perjury and fabrication of evidence is placed before the Court, the
learned Family Court is obliged to form a prima facie opinion on such

2
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal-

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11154

allegations at the earliest opportunity and cannot defer consideration
of the application to the stage of final hearing.

7. Learned counsel urged that the Respondent has deliberately
suppressed her true income, misrepresented facts concerning her
employment and furnished false statements with the intent to obtain
inflated interim maintenance. It was argued that allowing such
falsehood to remain on record without immediate action undermines
the purity of judicial proceedings.

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argued, the expression
"expedient in the interest of justice" appearing in Section 340 CrPC
mandates timely intervention where material before the Court reveals
prima facie commission of offences under Chapter XI of the Penal
Code. Learned counsel submitted that the Family Court misdirected
itself by treating the application as premature, thereby permitting the
Respondent to obtain orders on the basis of allegedly fabricated
evidence.

9. It was further submitted that deferring adjudication of the
application renders the provision otiose, and that the power under
Section 340 Cr.PC. cannot be reduced to a mere post-trial exercise. On
these premises, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned
order.

10. Mr. Piyush Garg, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-
wife, supported the impugned order and submitted that no interference

3
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal-

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11154

is warranted in the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. It was
submitted that initiation of proceedings under Section 340 CrPC is not
mandatory upon mere allegation of falsehood, and the Court must first
reach a clear conclusion that deliberate fabrication has occurred and
that prosecution is necessary in the interest of justice.

11. Learned counsel contended that the Family Court has rightly
observed that such satisfaction can be properly arrived at only after
evidence is recorded, including cross-examination of the parties. It
was argued that the Petitioner seeks to prematurely convert
matrimonial litigation into a collateral criminal inquiry, which would
derail the proceedings and defeat the very object of the Family Court
Act.

12. It was further submitted that the Supreme Court has consistently
held that Section 340 Cr.P.C. requires a cautious approach and that
prosecution for perjury is warranted only in exceptional
circumstances. In the present case, no such extraordinary situation
exists. The Respondent's statements are matters for appreciation
during trial and cannot be treated as criminal falsehood at the
interlocutory stage.

13. On these premises, learned counsel submitted that the writ
petition is misconceived, that no jurisdictional error has been
committed by the learned Family Court, and that the present petition
deserves to be dismissed.

4
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal-

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11154

14. Heard learned counsel for the Parties and perused the records.

15. The scope of jurisdiction under Article 227 is supervisory and
not appellate. Interference is warranted only where the subordinate
court has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction or
committed a patent illegality resulting in grave injustice. This Court
does not sit in review over interlocutory orders merely because
another view is possible.

16. The impugned order reflects that the Petitioner's application
under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not rejected
on merits. The learned Family Court has only deferred its
consideration to a stage where evidence of the parties becomes
available. Section 340 Cr.P.C postulates that before directing
prosecution for offences under Sections 191 and 193 of the Penal
Code, the Court must form a clear opinion that (i) an offence appears
to have been committed in relation to a proceeding before it, and (ii)
that initiating prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice.

17. The satisfaction contemplated by Section 340 Cr.P.C cannot be
mechanical. Such satisfaction must be founded on cogent material
demonstrating deliberate falsehood or conscious fabrication intended
to mislead the Court. In matrimonial proceedings where assertions and
counter-assertions on financial capacity, income and assets are
routinely made, the determination of whether any statement is false to
the knowledge of a party ordinarily requires appreciation of evidence
and an opportunity of cross-examination.

5
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal-

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11154

18. In the present case, the allegations levelled by the Petitioner
relate to the Respondent's affidavit of assets and liabilities filed in
support of her maintenance application. Whether the Respondent's
statements therein are inaccurate, whether such inaccuracy is wilful,
and whether it has any bearing on the administration of justice, are
issues which can be assessed only after the evidence of the parties is
recorded. The learned Family Court has, therefore, rightly opined that
the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C should be considered at the
appropriate stage of the proceedings.

19. This Court finds no perversity or jurisdictional error in such an
approach. Section 340 Cr.P.C does not oblige a Court to initiate
prosecution at the threshold of proceedings upon mere allegation of
falsehood. On the contrary, premature invocation of Section 340
Cr.P.C has the potential to derail the primary adjudication and convert
matrimonial litigation into collateral criminal proceedings, which is
neither the object of the statute nor conducive to expeditious disposal.

20. The Petitioner's apprehension that the Respondent may secure
orders on the basis of allegedly incorrect statements does not
constitute a ground for invoking Article 227. The Petitioner is at
liberty to contest the Respondent's financial disclosures during trial, to
raise all permissible contentions before the Family Court, and to seek
appropriate reliefs in accordance with law. At this stage, no case for
supervisory interference is made out.

6
Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal-

Ashish Naithani J.
2025:UHC:11154

21. This Court is satisfied that the learned Family Court has
exercised its discretion in accordance with settled principles and that
no manifest illegality, procedural irregularity or perversity is
demonstrated so as to warrant interference in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction.

ORDER

For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The order dated 19.07.2024 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Dehradun, does not disclose any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not prejudice the rights of either party before the learned Family Court, which shall proceed to adjudicate the matter strictly in accordance with law.

(Ashish Naithani J.) 15.12.2025 Arti ARTI SINGH

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b6 9c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E73 4BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH Date: 2025.12.16 18:03:30 +05'30'

Writ Petition (Criminal) No.1037 of 2024, Ravi Kant Sagar Vs. Anugya Shaiwal-

Ashish Naithani J.