BRAJESH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3065 of 2026

Brajesh Singh
                                                             .....Appellant(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)        : Rajesh     Kumar     Kanojia,   Saushthav
                                  Guha
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A.

Court No. - 90
                    HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section - 380 Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS') against

judgment and order dated 17.02.2026, passed by learned Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court No.3, Bulandshahr in Misc. Case No. 752
of 2022 (Brijesh Singh Vs. Smt. Rashmi), whereby the application filed

by appellant under Section - 340 Cr.P.C., has been rejected.


2. The appeal is being decided finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State

and perused the record..


4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is

against facts and law and thus, liable to be set aside. Appellant is husband

of respondent No.2 and she has filed a case under Section - 125 Cr.P.C..

In proceedings of that case, the respondent No.2 has made false averment

in order to misled the Family Court. Appellant is suffering from cancer

and he was unable to walk but the respondent No.2 has concealed that fact

in the affidavit and she has mentioned him as hale and hearty. In her

examination-in-chief, the respondent No.2 has made false allegation that
                                                                  CRLA No. 3065 of 2026
                                    2


she was harassed and assaulted, whereas she has left her matrimonial

home on 30.06.2019. It was further submitted that in the affidavit, the

respondent No.2 has made false averment regarding income of appellant

and she has submitted several contradictory documents regarding income

of appellant. Similarly she has made false averment that except her job as

'Shiksha Mitra', she has no other income but in fact she used to do the

work of stitching and she also used to take tuitions and thereby she used

to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month but she has concealed these facts and tried

to mislead the Family Court. Learned counsel submitted that the

application filed by appellant under Section - 340 Cr.P.C., has been

rejected in an arbitrary manner, whereas a case for taking an action under

Section - 340 Cr.P.C. was made out. Referring to facts of the matter, it

was submitted that impugned order is liable to be set aside.


5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the appeal and submitted that there is no

illegality or perversity in the impugned order.


6. I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.


7. Before proceeding further, it would be apt to refer the provisions of the

section - 340 Cr.P.C., which reads reads as under :-

     "340. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any

     Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest 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
                                                                  CRLA No. 3065 of 2026
                                    3

     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.


     (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.


     (4) In this section," Court" has the same meaning as in section 195."



8. A perusal of section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that these provisions are

applicable in respect of such cases which are covered by section 195(1)(b)

Cr.P.C.. Section 195(1)(b) reads as under :-

     "195(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 committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or


     (ii) of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Section 471,

     Section 475 or Section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to

     have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a

     proceeding in any Court, or


     (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the

     abetment of, any offence specified in sub- clause (i) or sub- clause (ii),

     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."



9. The object of Section - 340 Cr.P.C. / 379 BNSS is to provide a

safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecution. For taking action

under section 340 Cr.P.C. / 379 BNSS, the Court has to form an opinion

that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made

for an offence referred to in section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., which appears to

have been committed or in relation to a proceeding in that Court. In case
                                                                                  CRLA No. 3065 of 2026
                                          4


of Dr S. P. Kohli V The High Court Punjab and Haryana, reported in AIR

1978 SC 1753, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that prosecution for perjury

should be sanctioned by Courts only in those cases where it appears to be

deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or

likely. It is also well recognized that there must be a prima facie of

deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and the Court should be

satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge.


10. In Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and another AIR 1971 SC 1367,

the court held:

     "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."



11. In MANU/PH/0330/1985 [Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur]

, the Court held:

     "4. As is plain from the aforesaid stances adopted by the parties, they are out

     for personal vendetta. It is a settled principle of law that courts never

     become tools at the hands of the parties to satisfy private vendetta or to take

     up cudgels on behalf of one party and punish the other. The primary object to

     take    proceedings    under   Section   340    of   the   Code   of   Criminal   Procedure,   in

     instituting a complaint for giving false evidence, is to curb the evil of

     perjury and to keep the flow of proceedings in courts unsullied and pure. It is

     only in a rare case, when the Court comes to the conclusion that if the

     complaint is filed conviction is more or less a certainty, that it chooses to

     become a complainant. In such like contentious issues, when the wife can again

     indulge in proving that the husband was wrong and she was right, it is not

     expedient for this Court to enter into the fact and become a complainant at the

     behest of the husband-petitioner. Thus, I am of the considered view that it is

     not expedient to pursue the matter any further at the instance of the parties."
                                                        CRLA No. 3065 of 2026
                               5


12. It is thus clear that in every inquiry under section 340 CrPC / 379

BNSS the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission

of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C., as the section 340

CrPC is conditioned by the words "court is of opinion that it is expedient

in the interests of justice". In fact such a course has to be adopted only if

the interest of justice requires and not in every case. 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 would be pertinent to mention that the

Courts never become tools at the hands of the parties to satisfy private

vendetta to take up cudgels on behalf of one party and punish the other.


13. In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that appellant is husband

of the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 has filed a case under

Section - 125 Cr.P.C.. In proceedings of that case, the appellant has filed

an application under Section - 340 Cr.P.C. / 379 BNSS, alleging that the

respondent No.2 has made false averments in her affidavit and made false

statements. The appellant is suffering from cancer and he was unable to

walk but the respondent No.2 has concealed that fact in the affidavit. In

her examination-in-chief, the respondent No.2 has made false allegation

that she was harassed and assaulted, whereas she has left her matrimonial

home on 30.06.2019. It was further submitted that the respondent No.2

has made false averment regarding income of appellant and she has

submitted several contradictory documents regarding income of appellant.

Similarly she has made false statement that except working as 'Shiksha

Mitra', she has no other income but in fact she used to do the work of

stitching and she also used to take tuitions and thereby she used to earn
                                                                                            CRLA No. 3065 of 2026
                                                                    6


                                    Rs. 20,000/- per month. It may be stated that veracity of the statements

                                    made by the respondent No.2 in Court or averments made in the affidavit

                                    has to be considered by the Family Court concerned on the basis of

                                    evidence of the parties. Even if she has made an incorrect or contradictory

                                    statement, that may not be a ground to make complaint against her for

                                    offences mentioned in Section - 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C.. Considering entire

                                    facts, no prima facie case, as mentioned in Section - 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. is

                                    made out. The application of appellant under Section - 340 Cr.P.C. was

                                    rejected by the Family Court by a reasoned order. As stated above, for

                                    taking action under Section - 340 Cr.P.C. / 379 BNSS, there must be

                                    some expediency in the interest of justice. In the instant matter, this Court

                                    does not find any such expediency in the interest of justice so as to take

                                    action under Section - 340 Cr.P.C. / 379 BNSS. There is no material

                                    illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The appeal lacks merit and

                                    thus, liable to be dismissed.


                                    14. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.



                                                                                            (Raj Beer Singh,J.)
                                    April 1, 2026
                                    S Rawat




Digitally signed by :-
SHOBHIT RAWAT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad