IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.267/2014 BETWEEN:
SHRI. B.J.INDUSHEKAR S/O SHRI. D.V.JAGADISH AGED 43 YEARS R/AT NO. 477, 9TH MAIN, 40TH CROSS, 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560041. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADV.-ABSENT) AND:
SMT. UMA C SWADIMATH D/O SHRI CHANDRAKANTH SWADIMATH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/AT NO.441/2, 16TH CROSS, KRISHNAN APARTMENT, HOUSE NO.32, NEAR COWDAIAH MEMORIAL HALL, MALLESWARAM, BANGALORE-560003. ….RESPONDENT (BY SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S.G.MUNISWAMY GOWDA ADV.FOR RESPONDENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.11.2011 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.PRL.JUDGE, FAMILY COURT AT BANGALORE ETC., THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned counsel for petitioner is absent.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the III Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore dated 22.11.2011 in Misc.P.No.104/2010 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
4. The respondent herein filed a petition under section 125 of Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from the petitioner in Crl.Misc. No.530/2004 on the ground that she has no source of income to maintain herself. Contending that the said averments made in the petition are false and incorrect and intended to mislead the Court, petitioner sought prosecution of the respondent by moving an application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
5. In the meanwhile, the respondent herself having withdrawn the main petition filed under section 125 of Cr.P.C., the learned magistrate has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.
6. Though the withdrawal of the main petition by itself does not exculpate the respondent of the consequences of perjury, yet in terms of Sec.340 of Cr.P.C., action for perjury could be initiated against the perjurer only if the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice or that an inquiry should be made into the offence.
In the instant case, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent-wife having approached the Court seeking maintenance, the trial Court having come to the conclusion that it was not expedient in the interest of justice to hold enquiry under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the impugned order.
Consequently, petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE JS/-