Rammilan vs State of U.P. and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1778 of 2026

Rammilan

.....Appellant(s) Versus

State of U.P. and Another	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Yakub Ali
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 91

¶6

HON'BLE RAJ BEER SINGH, J.

¶7

This appeal has been preferred under Section 380 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita ( hereinafter referred to as 'BNSS ') against judgment and order dated 06.10.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, IIIrd Gorakhpur in Misc. Case No.3118 of 2023 (Ram Milan Vs. Shankrawati @ Suwarawati Devi), District- Gorakhpur, whereby the application filed by appellant under Section 340/ 195 Cr.P.C. (Section 379/ 215 BNSS) has been rejected.

¶8

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

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.

¶10

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that impugned order is against facts and law and thus liable to be set aside. The appellant is husband of the respondent no.2. In the proceedings of case under Domestic Violence Act, the respondent no.2 has made false averments and filed a false affidavit. She has stated the date of marriage falsely and made false allegation that the appellant has assaulted the respondent no.2 and made demand of money. Learned counsel submitted that the averments of the respondent no.2 were apparently false and she has filed false evidence and thus a case of perjury was made out. It was submitted that learned trial Court has committed error by rejecting the application of appellant under Section 340 Cr.P.C. / Section 379 BNSS and thus the

¶11

CRLA No. 1778 of 2026

¶12

2

¶13

impugned order is liable to be set aside.

¶14

Learned AGA has opposed the appeal and submits that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

¶15

I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

¶16

Before proceeding further, it would be apt to refer the provisions of the section - 340 Cr.P.C., which reads reads as under :-

¶17

"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,-

¶18

(a) record a finding to that effect;

¶19

(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;

¶20

(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;

¶21

(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

¶22

(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

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

¶26

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 :-

¶27

"195(1) No Court shall take cognizance -

¶28

(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

¶29

CRLA No. 1778 of 2026

¶30

3

¶31

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

¶32

(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

¶33

(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"

¶34

The object of Section - 340 Cr.P.C. is to provide a safeguard against frivolous and vexatious prosecution. For taking action under section 340 Cr.P.C., 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 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.

¶35

In Chajoo Ram v. Radhey Shyam and another AIR 1971 SC 1367, the court held:

¶36

"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. "

¶37

CRLA No. 1778 of 2026

¶38

4

¶39

11. In MANU/PH/0330/1985 [Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur] , the Court held:

¶40

"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."

¶41

It is thus clear that in every inquiry under section 340 CrPC the court is not bound to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b), 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.

¶42

In the instant matter, perusal of record shows that appellant is husband of respondent no.2 and their marriage has taken place way back in the year 1979. In proceedings of the case under Domestic Violence Act, the appellant has filed an application mainly alleging that respondent no.2 has made false averments and she has stated the date of marriage falsely and made false allegations that she was harassed and assaulted by the appellant and she was turned out from matrimonial home. It appears that

¶43

CRLA No. 1778 of 2026

¶44

5

¶45

the said case is still pending before the trial Court. The veracity of the averments or statement of respondent no.2 is to be considered by the concerned court in accordance with law. Learned Magistrate has considered entire facts and the application of appellant was rejected by a reasoned order. As stated above, for taking action under Section 340 Cr.P.C. / Section 379 BNSS, their has to be expediency in the interest of justice. Considering entire facts, it can not be said that there was any expediency to make a complaint in terms of Section 379 BNSS / Section 340 Cr.P.C. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The appeal lacks merit and thus, liable to be dismissed.

¶46

With aforesaid observations, the appeal is hereby dismissed.

¶47

February 25, 2026 'SP'/-

¶48

(Raj Beer Singh,J.)

¶49

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rammilan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rammilan v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mansoor Ansari vs State of U.P.

Maulavi Hafiz Jameer vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Naresh Singh @ Naresh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ravi vs State of U.P.

Ujaifa vs State of U.P.

Shera @ Nikhil @ Nitin vs State of U.P. and 3 Others