PRASHANT Vs. PRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges the order 27/2/2023, below Exh.57, an application for initiation of an enquiry under Sec. 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) for the offences punishable under Ss. 191, 192, 193, 195, 200 and 209 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), which has been rejected by the learned trial Court by the impugned order (page 117). It is contended, that two false statements have been made by the respondent which ought to have been taken cognizance of by the learned Court and an enquiry under Sec. 340 of Cr.P.C. ought to have been directed. The first statement is regarding allegation made in para 12 of the affidavit before the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division in Hindu Marriage Petition No.147/2016, which states, that because of the assault upon the abdomen of the respondent, she was required to be aborted. To controvert this statement, reliance is placed upon the statement recorded by the police of Dr. Baliram Dhondiram Parsewar on 20/09/2014 (page 81), in which he makes a statement that the respondent had told him that she required tablets for abortion as she was afraid on account of taking the tablet of phenumesulphide, she was apprehensive that there would be adverse impact upon fetus. This is merely a statement recorded by the police at the time of investigation of the complaint made by the respondent. That apart, the learned Court below has recorded in para 23 of the impugned order that no contradistinctions have been brought on record in the cross-examination of the respondent regarding the aforesaid statement. Mr. Vairagade, learned counsel for the petitioner is also unable to point out any such contradictions in the cross-examination of the respondent. This plea is therefore, not available to the petitioner for the purpose of raising a claim under Sec. 340 of the Cr.P.C.

(2.) The next contention is, that the respondent has made a false statement of not having any job, in her application for interim maintenance, whereas it is contended, that she was in fact having a job. The application for interim maintenance is dtd. 05/11/2016 (page 53) as against which the documents relied upon to indicate the employment of the respondent (page 104) indicates the employment w.e.f. 02/04/2019, considering which, this ground is also not available. I do not see any merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. No costs.