HIGH COURT OF M.P. BENCH AT INDORE

S.B : HON’BLE JUSTICE SHRI SHAILENDRA SHUKLA
CRA. No.4427/2020

Ankur Siroutiya
vs.
Smt. Ruchi

******
Heard the learned counsel through video conferencing.
Shri Ankur Siroutiya, present in person through video conferencing.

Shri N. Dave, Advocate for respondent.
******
JUDGMENT
(02.12.2020) This order seeks to dispose of appeal filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C by appellant Ankur Siroutiya, which has been preferred against the order dated 13.3.2020 passed in MJCR No.411/2019 by the Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain, rejecting the application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.

2. As per facts stated the respondent Smt. Ruchi had filed Misc. Criminal Case No.125 of Cr.P.C against appellant Ankur before the Family Court at Ujjain. Vide order dated 19.9.2018, the aforesaid application was rejected. The appellant thereafter filed an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C alleging that respondent has given false evidence in the aforesaid case and provisions of Section 191, 193, 199, 200 and 209 of IPC are attracted and an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C was filed in which it was prayed that the JMFC should lodge a written complaint against the respondent. However, this application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C was rejected on 13.3.2020.

3. The appellant submits that the respondent had categorically stated that she has not done any job after completing her M.Sc. and had denied that she was working in Bharti Gyan Peeth, but appellant produced the relevant document Exhibit A/4, showing the respondent to be working as lecturer in Bharti Gyan Peeth. The appellant had also furnished a passbook of respondent showing crediting salary in her account due to her job as lecturer; that the respondent had also worked as Lab. Assistant and document to that effect was also filed; that the appellant submits that such false evidence was given by respondent only to obtain maintenance from the appellant. The appellant submits that although the maintenance application was rejected but respondent filed a revision application but held back the new development which was that respondent had been selected to the post of Patwari. The appellant submits that the application for maintenance was filed by the respondent malafidely in order to harass the appellant and due to interim order passed, the appellant suffered a loss of Rs.45,000/- because he was required to pay Rs.2500/- per month to respondent for a period of 18 months. Thus, it is prayed that appeal be allowed and that the competent Court, ie., Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court, Ujjain be directed to lodge a written compliant against the respondent; that the respondent be directed to return Rs.45,000/- received by her fraudulently from the appellant and the cost of Rs.5000/- be also directed to be paid to the appellant.

4. The respondent has not submitted her written reply but has orally stated that the applicant has filed this application only to harass her. He further submits that the documents on which the appellant relied have not been exhibited in evidence and that the ingredients of Section 195A and Section 195B are missing. He has further referred to the citations of Apex Court quoted by the Family Court in para 7 of the impugned order dated 13.3.2020.

5. The question before this court is whether in view of the submissions made by the appellant that this appeal filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C deserves to be allowed or not.

6. Appellant Ankur has drawn Court’s attention to the various documents placed on record. He has referred to the order passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C dated 19.9.2018 wherein in para 13, the court has mentioned respondent Ruchi has stated in her examination in chief that she has done M.Sc in Computer Science and presently pursuing further studies and that she has no source of income. The evidence of Ruchi has been pointed out by Ankur and this evidence is placed at Page No.62 of the compilation in which she has stated that she has undertaken no job anywhere. Further reference has been made to a document placed at Page No.72 which is a document describing the faculty of Bhartiya Institute of Professional Studies. In this document, it has been shown that Ruchi is appointed as lecturer and having experience of six months of lecturer in the aforesaid institute.

7. Appellant Ankur has referred to Annexure A/6 which is the passbook of Oriental Bank of Commerce showing depositing of salary of Rs.5496/- in the bank account of Ruchi. Appellant Ankur further pointed out that the application filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C by Ruchi which is placed at Page No.81 of the compilation in which she has stated that she used to teach in Bhartiya Gyan Peeth College for a very short period of time. Appellant Ankur has further invited Court’s attention to Annexure A/8 which is placed at Page No.84 of the compilation which is a document of the identity card of Ruchi showing that she is an employee in Bhartiya Gyan Peeth College, Ujjain as Lab Assistant. The appointment on the post of Patwari of Ruchi is another document which has been referred by the appellant. This document is dated 25.10.2018. Appellant Ankur submits that even though Ruchi has been appointed on the post of Patwari on 25.10.2018, still in criminal revision filed by her, she had shown to be a student and this document is Annexure A/9 at Page No.85.

8. Submissions were considered.

9. It would be appropriate to reproduce Section 340(1) of Cr.P.C which reads as under :-

Section 340 Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.
(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests 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 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.
10. The word of importance in the aforesaid provision “expedient in the interest of justice”.

11. The Apex court in the case of Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain, AIR 1973 SC 2190 has observed that while exercising the power to prosecute for giving false evidence, this court should exercise its judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The Court’s order of prosecution should be in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely, that Court should direct prosecution. The above observation of the Court made it very clear that the recourse to Section 340 of Cr.P.C can be resorted to only in the larger interest of administration of justice and not in cases where it appears that such application has been filed to wreak vengeance.

12. The documents which has been referred to by appellant Ankur show that Ruchi was working as Lab Assistant and also as lecturer in Bharti Institute of Professional Studies. Both these jobs do not appear to be permanent kind of jobs. Section 125 of Cr.P.C provides for maintenance to a wife who is unable to maintain herself. If the wife is involved in such temporary jobs, it cannot be stated that she has a regular source of income. The Apex Court in the case of Sunita Kachwa vs. Anil Kachwa, III (2014) DMC 878 (SC) has held that in any event merely because the wife is earning something, it would not be a ground to reject or claim. Thus, the moot question was whether wife Ruchi had regular and permanent job. The answer is no because the regular job which Ruchi got later on was the post of Patwari and the Family Court rejected her application for maintenance because she had got a regular job as Patwari.

13. Thus, it cannot be stated that it would be in the larger interest of justice that Ruchi should have been prosecuted under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The dispute between husband and wife generally reaches the Court when much blood has already been spilled between them. The tendency to wreak vengeance runs strongly between them and due to such feelings, there is a tendency to somehow implicate the opposite party who may either be the husband or the wife.

14. In the matter at hand, it was not inappropriate on the part of the Family Court to lodge a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. This appeal filed under Section 341 of Cr.P.C deserves to be dismissed in the aforesaid circumstances. Regarding the other prayer which is the return of interim maintenance already given by Ankur to Ruchi, it has been found that Ruchi was was doing jobs which were temporary in nature and she was not having regular source of income. She sometime was working as Lab Assistant for a short period and also working as lecturer also for short period. The passbook of Oriental Bank of Commerce shows her salary deposited in the bank for two months only. In such scenario, it would not be appropriate to allow the prayer of appelalnt Ankur to direct respondent Ruch to return the amount received by her as interim maintenance. The aforesaid prayer is also rejected. However, the cost of Rs.3000/- which has been imposed upon appellant Ankur by the Family Court deserves to be set aside in view of the fact that respondent Ruchi had specifically stated that she is merely a student and not working at all. Thus, there is substance in the submission of the appellant Ankur that respondent Ruchi had made false statement. However, as already observed, it was not in the interest of justice that a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C should have been filed by the Family Court.

15. With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of as rejected. However, the order imposing cost of Rs.3000/- on appellant Ankur by Family Court is set aside.

(SHAILENDRA SHUKLA) JUDGE