The Allahabad High Court held that when a party files an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. alleging false affidavit, the Family Court must decide that application before proceeding with the maintenance case under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The Court ruled that failure to do so vitiates the maintenance order if it relies on the disputed affidavit. The High Court set aside the maintenance order and directed the Family Court to first decide the perjury application within a fixed time frame.
“It is further submitted by learned counsel for the revisionist that the learned Family Court without deciding the application filed by the revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has proceeded with the case and decided the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and maintenance has been awarded on relying the false affidavit filed by opposite party no.2.”
“Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State do not dispute the aforesaid legal position.”
“In view of above the criminal revision is allowed. The judgement and order dated 14.06.2023 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1, Kanpur Nagar in Case No.- 502 of 2020 is set aside.”
“Learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Court No.-1/court concerned is directed to decide the application filed by revisionist under Section 340 Cr.P.C. which was registered as Misc. Application No. 473 of 2022 within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, and thereafter the application filed by opposite party no.2 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. expeditiously, without granting undue adjournments to either of the parties unless there is any legal impediments.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the criminal revision.
It set aside the maintenance order.
It directed the Family Court to first decide the Section 340 Cr.P.C. application.
It ordered that the maintenance case proceed only thereafter.
The Karnataka High Court held that when a court records a specific finding that a party suppressed material facts on oath, it cannot dismiss a perjury application as premature merely because the main case remains pending. The Court ruled that allegations of false evidence affect the purity of judicial proceedings and require prompt consideration. It set aside the Family Court’s order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
The following paragraphs form the foundation of the Court’s decision.
Para 4(a):
“…If these IT Returns are taken into consideration, the respondent is having income and she is also earning income… She has not filed any counter to the objections filed by the petitioner and also with respect to these IT Returns. In fact, by filing a complaint she has admitted that she has filed Income Tax Returns… Under such circumstances, she has suppressed the fact that she was earning income…”
Para 4(b):
“…when the Court below has recorded a specific finding as to the income of the respondent from the medical profession that too on the basis of undisputed IT Returns for the relevant period; when it has also recorded a specific finding that the respondent has suppressed the fact that she was earning income; that being the position, the application of petitioner for initiating action for the offence of perjury, could not have been turned down as being premature merely because main matter is still pending…”
Para 4(c):
“…act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies; consideration of complaints with regard to the same cannot be deferred or delayed; otherwise there is all possibility of the fountain of justice being polluted.”
Para 4(e):
“…applications of the kind need to be considered on merits at the earliest point of time so that a loud message goes to the unscrupulous section of the litigant public as to what would befall the perjuring parties.”
Understanding the scope, grounds, and judicial principles governing quashing of criminal proceedings.
Criminal prosecution can severely affect personal liberty, reputation, and professional life. However, not every FIR discloses a legally sustainable offence. In such situations, the law provides a constitutional safeguard.
The remedy lies under:
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Specifically, Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to:
Prevent abuse of process of law
Secure the ends of justice
Quash criminal proceedings where continuation is unjustified
This article explains the legal framework, judicial tests, landmark precedents, and strategic considerations for filing a quashing petition in brief.
I. What Is Section 482 CrPC?
Section 482 states that nothing in the Code shall limit the inherent powers of the High Court.
These powers are extraordinary in nature and must be exercised:
Sparingly
With caution
Only in rare and exceptional cases
Nevertheless, it is not an appellate power. In fact, it is a supervisory and preventive jurisdiction.
II. When Can FIR Be Quashed?
The Supreme Court laid down guiding principles in:
This judgment identified illustrative categories where quashing may be justified.
Key Grounds for Quashing:
Allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence
FIR is manifestly attended with mala fide intent
Allegations are absurd or inherently improbable
There is no legal evidence supporting prosecution
Proceedings amount to abuse of process
Dispute is purely civil in nature
Parties have settled the dispute (in appropriate cases)
III. Quashing in Matrimonial Offences (498A Cases)
Quashing petitions frequently arise in complaints under:
Section 498A IPC
Section 406 IPC
Section 34 IPC
Courts have repeatedly cautioned against mechanical implication of relatives.
In Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court addressed misuse in matrimonial litigation and emphasised procedural safeguards.
High Courts often quash proceedings where:
Allegations are omnibus
No specific role is attributed
Distant relatives reside separately
Complaint lacks prima facie material
IV. Settlement-Based Quashing
Even though Section 498A IPC is non-compoundable, courts permit quashing where matrimonial disputes are amicably resolved.
In Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that High Courts may quash non-compoundable offences if the dispute is personal and continuation would serve no purpose.
Similarly, in Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, guidelines were laid down for compromise-based quashing.
The principle: criminal law should not be used as a weapon once parties have settled significantly.
V. Can FIR Be Quashed After Chargesheet?
Yes. Quashing is maintainable even after filing of chargesheet under Section 173 CrPC.
However, courts are more cautious once investigation is complete.
The test becomes:
Whether materials collected disclose a prima facie case
Whether continuation would amount to injustice
In case the evidence supports trial, courts may refuse interference.
VI. Procedure for Filing Quashing Petition
A petition under Section 482 CrPC is filed before the jurisdictional High Court.
Quash proceedings partially against specific accused
VII. Judicial Caution: What Courts Will Not Do
High Courts will not:
Conduct mini-trials
Examine disputed facts
Evaluate credibility of witnesses
Weigh evidence
If allegations disclose prima facie offence, trial must proceed. In any case, section 482 is not a substitute for trial.
VIII. Strategic Considerations Before Filing
Filing a premature petition may weaken credibility.
Consider:
Stage of investigation
Strength of allegations
Documentary contradictions
Settlement possibilities
Parallel civil proceedings
Thus strategic timing is undoubtedly crucial.
IX. Common Mistakes in Quashing Petitions
Raising factual disputes requiring evidence
Filing without examining FIR carefully
Over-reliance on defence documents
Ignoring Supreme Court precedents
Filing multiple repetitive petitions
Subsequently, courts may impose costs for frivolous petitions.
X. Recent Judicial Approach
Courts increasingly:
Protect distant relatives in 498A cases
Scrutinise omnibus allegations
Encourage settlement in matrimonial disputes
Emphasise that criminal law should not become harassment
However, courts remain strict where allegations show serious cruelty or violence.
Conclusion
Section 482 CrPC ,thus, acts as a constitutional safety valve against misuse of criminal process. Additionally, it ensures that criminal law does not become a tool of oppression.
However, it is an extraordinary remedy. Courts exercise it with restraint. A well-structured petition grounded in settled principles significantly improves prospects.
The guiding test remains:
Does continuation of prosecution serve justice — or defeat it?
Therefore, when proceedings lack legal foundation or arise from matrimonial vendetta, inherent powers of the High Court restore balance.
379. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215.—
(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 215, 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.
(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 215.
(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 or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 215.
A single judge of Madhya Pradesh Hugh Court at Jabalpur Bench held as follows,
From Para 8,
8. A police officer cannot directly register a crime for offence under Section 215 B.N.S.S. once the offence is committed in or in relation to a proceeding in the Court. As per Section 379 B.N.S.S., the Court has to cause preliminary enquiry and then can make a complaint in writing. However, in the present case, the Court has not made any enquiry, nor recorded any prima-facie satisfaction and has simply directed the police authorities to carry out an investigation and submit a report before the Court. Though the Court in its discretion could have directed the police authorities to investigate the matter and to furnish report before the Court, but the discretion to register FIR should not have been left at the discretion of the police authorities. It was for the Court to have applied its mind after receiving the preliminary enquiry report of the police authorities.
393. Language and contents of judgment.—
(1) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Sanhita, every judgment referred to in section 392,—
(a) shall be written in the language of the Court;
(b) shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision;
(c) shall specify the offence (if any) of which, and the section of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) or other law under which, the accused is convicted, and the punishment to which he is sentenced;
(d) if it be a judgment of acquittal, shall state the offence of which the accused is acquitted and direct that he be set at liberty.
(2) When the conviction is under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) and it is doubtful under which of two sections, or under which of two parts of the same section, of that Sanhita the offence falls, the Court shall distinctly express the same, and pass judgment in the alternative.
(3) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the judgment shall state the reasons for the sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for such sentence.
(4) When the conviction is for an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, but the Court imposes a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than three months, it shall record its reasons for awarding such sentence, unless the sentence is one of imprisonment till the rising of the Court or unless the case was tried summarily under the provisions of this Sanhita.
(5) When any person is sentenced to death, the sentence shall direct that he be hanged by the neck till he is dead.
(6) Every order under section 136 or sub-section (2) of section 157 and every final order made under section 144, section 164 or section 166 shall contain the point or points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for the decision.
A single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,
From Para 4,
4. Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist had filed written submissions before the trial court specifically alleging that opposite party no. 2 was living in adultery with one Rocky @ Tarun. However, the trial court did not consider the said allegation on the ground that no certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had been filed in support of the electronic evidence.
From Para 7,
7. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions advanced by learned counsel for revisionist and learned A.G.A., as well as perusal of the record and the order passed by the trial court, it appears that the WhatsApp chats annexed by the revisionist were not accepted solely on the ground that a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act had not been submitted. However, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides that a Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information, or matter that may, in its opinion, assist it in effectively dealing with a dispute, whether or not such evidence would otherwise be relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, while adjudicating matrimonial disputes, the Family Court may lay down its own procedure.
The Supreme Court examined whether a court exercising appellate jurisdiction can grant a decree of divorce on a ground not expressly enumerated in the statute. The matter required interpretation of Section 13 HMA and consideration of the constitutional limits on judicial law-making.
The Court analysed whether irretrievable breakdown, though recognised in certain judicial pronouncements, could operate as an independent ground for divorce in the absence of legislative incorporation. The judgment reaffirmed the principle of separation of powers and clarified that courts cannot expand statutory grounds through judicial innovation.
Important Extracts from the Judgment:
High Court Findings (Paras 13 & 17):
“On a reading of the entire evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the appellant has been able to establish that the respondent treated him with cruelty.”
“To grant divorce to the appellant despite this only on the ground of irretrievable breakdown would not, in the view of this Court, be doing justice to the respondent.”
On Findings of Fact:
“We are not inclined to interfere with the finding of fact of both the courts below that it was the appellant who treated the respondent with cruelty, rather than the other way around.”
On Irretrievable Breakdown Not Being a Statutory Ground:
“On a bare reading of Section 13 of the Act, reproduced above, it is crystal clear that no such ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is provided by the legislature for granting a decree of divorce. This Court cannot add such a ground to Section 13 of the Act as that would be amending the Act, which is a function of the legislature.”
“If we grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable breakdown, then we shall by judicial verdict be adding a clause to Section 13 of the Act to the effect that irretrievable breakdown of the marriage is also a ground for divorce.”
“In our opinion, this can only be done by the legislature and not by the Court.”
On Mutual Consent:
“Had both parties been willing we could, of course, have granted a divorce by mutual consent as contemplated by Section 13B of the Act, but in this case the respondent is not willing to agree to a divorce.”
After losing the Nullity petition here, I filed a divorce petition before Family Court, Ongole, Prakasam District, AP, seeking Decree of Divorce of my marriage under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act.
70. Proof of service in such cases and when serving officer not present.—
(1) When a summons issued by a Court is served outside its local jurisdiction, and in any case where the officer who has served a summons is not present at the hearing of the case, an affidavit, purporting to be made before a Magistrate, that such summons has been served, and a duplicate of the summons purporting to be endorsed (in the manner provided by section 64 or section 66) by the person to whom it was delivered or tendered or with whom it was left, shall be admissible in evidence, and the statements made therein shall be deemed to be correct unless and until the contrary is proved.
(2) The affidavit mentioned in this section may be attached to the duplicate of the summons and returned to the Court.
(3) All summons served through electronic communication under sections 64 to 71 (both inclusive) shall be considered as duly served and a copy of such summons shall be attested and kept as a proof of service of summons.
