Karnataka High Court
Gururaj vs Rashmi on 11 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337
CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200124 OF 2025
(341(Cr.PC)/380(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
GURURAJ S/O MALLIKARJUN VIJAPUR,
AGE: 41 YEARS OCC: GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O. KATTAGI ADDA MANE, ALNAWAR
TQ.ALNAWAR, DIST.DHARWAD - 581103
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI AJAY JAWALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
RASHMI W/O GURURAJ VIJAPUR
Digitally signed (D/O RAUTAPPA SALOTGI),
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR AGE: 34 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Location: HIGH R/O. PLOT NO.40, JEWARGI ROAD,
COURT OF CHAMUNDESHWAR COLONY, KALABURAGI-585102.
KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SHIVALING N.PADSHETTY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 341
OF CR.P.C (OLD), U/S. 380 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.03.2025
(ANNEXURE-Q) WHEREIN APPLICATION DATED 10.08.2022
(ANNEXURE-A) U/S 340 CR.P.C. R/W SECTIONS 383, 385, 417,
503, 211, 191, 192, 196, 199, 203, 499, 500 IPC HAS BEEN
DISMISSED BY THE LD. FAMILY COURT AT KALABURAGI IN
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337
CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025
HC-KAR
CRL.MISC.NO.6/2020 TITLED AS 'RASHMI VS GURURAJ'
WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE TRUE FACTS AND CORRECT LAW
AND IT IS FURTHER PRAYED THAT THE APPLICATION DATED
10.08.2022 (ANNEXURE-A) U/S 340 CR.P.C. FILED BY THE
APPELLANT MAY BE ALLOWED.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA) The appellant being the respondent in Crl.Misc.No.6/2020 on the file of the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Kalaburagi, [for short, 'the Family Court'] has preferred this appeal seeking to set aside the order dated 06.03.2025 dismissing the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 383, 385, 417, 504, 211, 191, 192, 196, 199, 203, 499, 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 [for short, 'the IPC'].
2. Facts of the case in brief are that respondent herein being the wife, filed Crl.Misc.No.6/2020 against the appellant herein before the Trial Court seeking -3- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337 CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025 HC-KAR maintenance and invoking Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The appellant being the respondent-husband has appeared before the Trial Court and contested the matter. The wife examined herself as PW-1 and produced several documents including Ex.P-7 the ROR standing in the name of Bijapur Mallikarjun S/o Channabasappa. It is elicited from PW-1 during cross-examination that she is aware of the document Ex.P-7. Immediately thereafter the appellant filed complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. read with Sections 383, 385, 417, 504, 211, 191, 192, 196, 199, 203, 499, 500 of the IPC before the Trial Court to summon the wife as accused and punish her in accordance with law.
3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that Ex.P-7 - the ROR referred to above is not standing in the name of the appellant and it amounts to fabrication of document. The wife had deposed that, the husband is owning the said property and it amounts to giving false evidence before the Court. It is also -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337 CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025 HC-KAR contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the wife has deposed falsely stating that she is not having any avocation or income which is also false and therefore, the complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. came to be filed.
4. The Trial Court has passed the impugned order on I.A.No.IX filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. by the appellant on 06.03.2025 dismissing the same. Being aggrieved by the same the appellant is before this Court.
5. Heard Sri Ajay Jawali, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Shivaling N. Padshetty, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the order passed by the Family Court on I.A.No.IX suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337 CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025 HC-KAR My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative', for the following:
REASONS
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that, since respondent -wife has produced Ex.P-7 before the Trial Court which is not standing in the name of the appellant and she relied on the same to claim maintenance, it amounts to fabrication of document and giving false evidence. It is also his contention that, since the wife has deposed before the Court stating that, she is not having income and therefore she is entitled to maintenance, amounts to giving false evidence and is punishable under Section 193 of IPC.
8. My attention was drawn to Annexure-D the order dated 17.07.2023 passed in Criminal Appeal No.200058/2023 by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court wherein, the appellant herein had approached this Court seeking to set aside the order dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Family Court rejecting the complaint under Section -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337 CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025 HC-KAR 340 of Cr.P.C. for want of jurisdiction. The said appeal came to be allowed. The order impugned dated 02.11.2022 passed by the Family Court was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Family Court to proceed in the light of Section 340 of Cr.P.C. The Court has referred to various decisions to hold that a preliminary enquiry before proceeding on an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is to be held and also held that dismissal of the complaint for want of jurisdiction is bad under law. Para-15 of the order specifically states that, language contained in Section 340 Cr.P.C. does not specify that, the proceeding is to be initiated only after the trial is concluded and in the absence of the same, the proceeding can be initiated at any stage of the proceeding. Accordingly, it directed the Family Court to proceed with the matter to consider the complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. in light of the observations made in the order.
9. It is thereafter, the appellant has approached this Court once again by filing Criminal Petition -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337 CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025 HC-KAR No.201304/2024 seeking a direction to the Family Court to proceed with the application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further in Crl.Misc.No.6/2020. The said petition came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directing the Family Court to proceed to consider the complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before proceeding further on the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Pursuant to the same, the impugned order came to be passed dismissing the complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
10. Admittedly, the Trial Court held an enquiry as directed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and dismissed the complaint by passing the impugned order. It is an admitted fact that, the respondent/wife is examined as PW.1 and she has been cross-examined by the learned counsel for the appellant herein. Instead of stepping into the witness box and deposing regarding the merits of the case, the appellant/husband was advised to -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337 CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025 HC-KAR file a complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. alleging production of fabricated and false evidence.
11. It is the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that, Ex.P7 pertains to the land owned by the father of the appellant herein. In Column No.9 of Ex.P7 name of one Mallikarjun Channabasappa is mentioned as the occupier. The appellant is the son of Mallikarjun Bijapur. Prima facie, the contention taken by learned counsel for the respondent appears to be true. Whether Ex.P7 refers to the land owned by the father of the appellant or whether the same was fabricated by the respondent to produce before the Court, is to be considered by the Trial Court after full-fledged trial. Admittedly, the appellant has not stepped into the witness box to depose about the said document.
12. The other contention taken by the appellant before the Trial Court is that, there is suppression of facts and the respondent has given false evidence regarding her -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337 CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025 HC-KAR first marriage. It is brought to the notice of the Court that, the respondent had married earlier and the said marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Under such circumstances, non reference about said marriage which is already dissolved, do not prima facie amount to giving false evidence. The appellant is required to substantiate the same to enable the Trial Court to initiate action.
13. The other contention taken by the appellant is that, the respondent is residing with her parents, but falsely contended that she is residing in a rented house. The only cross-examination to PW1 in Crl.Misc.No.6/2020 in this egard is to elicit from the witness that she is residing in Plot No.40 of Chamundeshwari Colony and it is a rented house. She does not know the name of the owner. She has produced the rental agreement. Now it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that, the said Plot No.40 referred to by the witness stands in the name of the father of the respondent and inspite of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337 CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025 HC-KAR that she is deposing falsely that it is a rented house. There is no such cross-examination to PW1 by the appellant. Even if it is to be assumed that, Plot No.40 referred to by the respondent herein belongs to her father, she being the married daughter, the father is not required to oblige her by giving the house free of cost. If at all she must be residing at the mercy of her father. Without any iota of evidence elicited during cross-examination of PW.1 before the Trial Court, the appellant ventured to file the complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. and is moving heaven and earth seeking initiation of action against the respondent on imaginary grounds. I do not find any basic requirements available for the Trial Court to accept the allegations made in the complaint for the purpose of referring the complaint to the jurisdictional Magistrate.
14. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. It has given elaborate reasons stating that, there are no materials to proceed against the respondent herein as provided under Section 340 of
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5337 CRL.A No. 200124 of 2025 HC-KAR Cr.P.C. The Trial Court has also observed that, the matter is still pending at the stage of evidence of the appellant herein and in the meantime, the application at I.A. No.9 came to be filed. As per the directions issued by this Court, the Trial Court proceeded to consider I.A. No.9 and passed the impugned order. I do not find any illegality and perversity in the said order.
15. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G. UMA) JUDGE SWK,SRT,SBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28 CT:PK