PRIYADARSHINI AMRITA PANDA Vs. BISWAJIT PATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal has been stated to be filed U/S. 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which has already been repealed w.e.f. 1/7/2024, but this Court, however, considers it to be a petition U/S. 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short, "BNSS"). The appellant, however, in essence challenges the impugned order dtd. 6/11/2024 passed by the learned Judge Family Court, Cuttack in Civil Proceeding No. 488 of 2018 refusing to entertain the petition of the appellant essentially U/S. 379 of the BNSS.

(2.) In the course of hearing, Mr.Basudev Pujari, learned counsel for the appellant by taking this Court through the impugned order submits that although the application of the appellant discloses some materials to take action against the respondent in terms of provision of Sec. 379 of BNSS, but fact remains that the learned trial Court by the impugned order has in fact not heard the appellant on the point and rather he has passed an order by observing inter alia that "the petition for initiation of criminal proceeding without authentic particular deserves no positive consideration, as such the same stands rejected". It is further submitted that the respondent- husband has deliberately and maliciously made false statement and suppressed facts in his disclosure affidavits filed before the learned trial Court and in such disclosure affidavit, the respondent has made a claim as if he is the only son of his father Nrushinga Charan Pati, but he has got a brother namely, Biswanath Pati who is working in a reputed company and earning Rs.3.00 lakhs per month and respondent-husband has also lied by stating that his father has left practice and depends on him for his maintenance, but his father N.C.Pati being an reputed Advocate has never left practice. It is also submitted by Mr.B.Pujari that the father of the respondent has landed properties and a two storeyed building in his native place and another two storeyed building in CDA, Cuttack, besides some landed properties in his name, but the respondent has intentionally withheld such facts in the disclosure affidavits as well as in evidence and thereby liable to be prosecuted for perjury in an action U/S. 340 of the CrPC, but the learned trial Court ignoring aforesaid facts has erroneously dismissed the application of the appellant to proceed against the respondent in terms of Sec. 340 of the CrPC.

(3.) In view of the aforesaid challenge by the appellant, this Court right now embark upon the petition filed by the appellant to see as to whether any action is required U/S. 379 of BNSS, but before doing that this Court considers it proper to refer to the provisions of Sec. 379 of BNSS which reads as under: