A single judge of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladhak High Court at Srinagar held as follows,

From Pars 9-10,

9. From a perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that before initiating an enquiry into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C, the Court has to frame an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so, whereafter the Court has to record a finding to that effect and make a complaint thereof in writing. The same has to be sent to the Magistrate of 1st Class having the jurisdiction.
10. Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 of the Cr. P. C makes a reference to the offences punishable under Section 193 to 196, 199, 200, 205 to 2011 and 228 of IPC when such offences are alleged to have been committed in or in relation to any proceedings in any court. The aforesaid offences fall under Chapter (XI) of the Indian Penal Code which relate to false evidence and offences against public justice. Thus, it is important for a Court to frame an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice to hold an enquiry with regard to commission of aforesaid offences if the same appear to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in a Court.

From Para 13,

13. From the analysis of the legal position on the subject, it is clear that preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C can be directed only if in the opinion of the Court, it is expedient in the interests of justice to do so when it appears that the offence of perjury in relation to court proceedings has been committed. Thus, two conditions are necessary for initiating proceedings under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C, first that the offence of perjury in relation to court proceedings should appear to have been committed and secondly, in the opinion of the court it should be expedient in the interests of justice to hold such preliminary enquiry.

From Paras 14-15,

14. Coming to the present case, the respondents/applicants have alleged that the petitioner/non-applicant has made false statements in his petition which relate to estimated losses as per the audit conducted on account of unauthorized sale of 18 tanker lorries, decline in profits of the partnership firm, non-deposit of sale amount of the vehicles in the account of the partnership firm, respondent having entered into partnership without consent of the petitioner and sale of plot of land by respondent/applicant owned by the partnership firm at Channi Himmat, Jammu, unilaterally. The veracity of all these allegations is a matter in issue before the Arbitral Tribunal. It is, therefore, yet to be determined as to whether the aforesaid allegations made by the petitioner in his petition under Section 9 of the Act are false.
15. It is not a case where the petitioner is stated to have made any contradictory statements in his pleadings but it is a case where he has made certain allegations, the veracity of which is yet to be determined. Had it been a case of contradictory stands having been taken by the petitioner in his pleadings, perhaps this Court would have been justified in holding a preliminary enquiry in terms of Section 340 of Cr. P. C at this stage itself but because the veracity of the allegations made by the petitioner in his petition, which according to the respondent/applicant are false, is yet to be determined and there is no material on record to suggest that the same are, prima facie, false, this Court feels that the prayer of the respondents/applicants for initiating preliminary enquiry under Section 340 of the Cr. P. C cannot be considered at this stage. The same has to await the determination of the aforesaid issues by the Arbitral Tribunal.

Index of perjury judgments is here.