Criminal Appeal against rejection of Section 340 CrPC application. Appellant complained wife produced confidential financial documents without permission. Court held Supreme Court dicta on Section 340 inquiries make appeal meritless.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148756
Court No. - 83
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4878 of 2022
Appellant :- Vikas Gaur Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kapil Tyagi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shyam Shanker Pandey
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.
Sri Kapil Tyagi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Shyam Shanker Pandey, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 3 to 5 and Sri Moi Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State are present.
The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 341 of Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No. 5, Ghaziabad passed in Misc. Case No. 205 of 2021, (Vikas Gaur vs. Smt. Richa Gaur and others), by which the trial court rejected the application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the opposite party no.2 without taking permission of the appellant obtained and produced the documents of the appellant and filed with an affidavit in a case of maintenance, which were confidential financial documents, which cannot be produced by any person.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 7 has vehemently opposed the prayer of this application and submits that the evidence cannot be false because the document has been filed by the opposite party no.2, who is wife of the appellant.
A three Judge Bench of Supreme Court Pritish vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 253, wherein it was observed that the purpose of preliminary inquiry under Section 340(1), of Cr.P.C. was not to find whether a person is guilty or not but only to decide whether it was expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence. It is further observed that Court is not obliged to make a preliminary inquiry on a complaint but if the court decides to do so, it should make a final set of the facts which is expedient in the interest of justice that offence should be further probed into.
In view of the above, this appeal has no merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission.
Order Date :- 26.7.2023 MAA/-
Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD AZAD ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the criminal appeal against the rejection of Section 340 CrPC application can succeed given that confidential documents were produced by the wife in a maintenance case.
Whether the Supreme Court in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra laid down law relevant to the preliminary inquiry under Section 340 CrPC applicable to the facts of this appeal.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Maharashtra & Ors.Explained¶10
Pritish vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2002) 1 SCC 253 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikas Gaur
State Of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Pachori
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
