Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: 340 application in Anshuman Verman And Anr vs State And Ors on 29 August, 2025Matching Fragments
2. All the aforesaid appeals have been filed well within its limitation period.
Appeal No. 291/24 seeking expediting of proceedings on application U/s 379 BNSS (340 Cr.P.C), stay of trial U/s 12 and 23 of D.V. Act till completion of proceedings U/s 340 Cr.P.C. and stay operation of orders dated 22.07.2024 and 23.07.2024.
3. In appeal No. 291/24, the two fold submission of the appellants is to expedite and proceed with their application U/s 379 BNSS (340 Cr.P.C) bearing Misc. Crl. No. 1308/2024 as the action thereon is getting delayed and the proceedings of complaint U/s 12 & 23 of D.V. Act and also operation of orders dated 22.07.2024 and 23.07.2024 passed in D.V. complaint, be stayed till the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. is disposed off.
7. The core issue left to be decided in the present appeal is whether the prayer of appellants seeking directions of this Court for expeditious hearing and disposal of the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. is required to be passed or not. Perusal of Trial Court Record of application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. reveals that on filing of the said application, notice was issued to the non-applicant/wife and matter was listed for arguments Digitally signed by CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PATHAK Date:
2025.08.29 16:40:52 +0530 thereon for 04.02.2025. Thereafter, non-applicant/wife did not appear before the Trial Court and notice was issued to her for 28.06.2024, when she was supplied with the copy of the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. Thereafter on 22.07.2024, non-applicant/wife did not appear and matter was listed for 05.11.2024. Thereafter, since the Ld. P.O was on leave on 05.11.2024, therefore the Ld. Link JMFC adjourned the matter for purpose fixed for 25.01.2025, when TCR was before this Court in appeal. There is no deliberate delay in adjudicating the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C by the Ld. Trial Court as perusal of record reveals that the adjournments were either due to non-appearance of the non-applicant/wife or leave of the Ld. PO and by the time, arguments could be heard, appellants filed instant appeal and TCR was summoned by this Court. It is obvious that in the absence of non-applicant or her legal aid counsel and Leave of Ld. PO or without supply of copy to the opposite side or when the TCR is before the appellant Court, arguments cannot be heard on the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. It appears that appellants have reacted in an pro-active manner and were impatient to file the instant appeal in a pre-mature manner. It can be seen that the Ld. Trial Court has been patient enough to take up the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. and no unnecessary adjournment have been given on the application. Hence, the instant appeal bearing CA No. 291/24 seeking directions to the Trial Court to expedite trial and disposal of application U/s 340 Cr.P.C., couple with stay of proceedings of complaint U/s 12 D.V. Act and orders CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. Date:
2025.08.29 16:43:06 +0530 she must be seeking financial assistance from her family, friends and relatives for her survival, which otherwise is the duty of the appellant/husband to maintain them in the given situation.
39. Appellants have taken the plea that in case they comply with the directions of the Ld. Trial Court contained in the impugned order, their application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. would become invalid. It may be mentioned that application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. has no binding as the same has been filed against the alleged discrepancies in the income affidavit and corresponding bank statement of the respondent/wife. Any order passed on the application U/s 340 Cr.P.C. will have no binding effect on the directions passed by the Ld. Trial Court for sharing of OTP for the purpose of obtaining birth certificate of child from Municipal Authorities. Moreover, the appeal against the interim maintenance order has already been dismissed by the Ld. Sessions Court vide order dated 13.03.2024. Hence, in no manner the ground that compliance of the impugned order by sharing OTP and giving Rs. 20,000/- towards School admission, would hamper his application U/s 340 Cr.P.C as the same has been filed for altogether a different purposes. Appellants have taken the plea that sharing of the OTP can cause serious financial losses and vulnerable attack by fraudsters, which is an frivolous ground as appellant/husband is a well educated person and qualified B.Tech and LLB and is conscious of repercussions of sharing OTP. Even otherwise one has to share OTP for other purposes also. The flat denial by the CA No. 291/2024, 302/2024 & 43/2025 Digitally signed by Anshuman Verman & Anr. vs. State & Anr. PURSHOTTAM PURSHOTTAM PATHAK PATHAK Date: 2025.08.29 16:43:12 +0530 appellant/husband to share OTP for registration of birth of the child for her school admission, leads to deliberate misconduct on the part of the appellants, for which adverse inference is drawn against them.