Section 340 CrPC applications should ordinarily be considered after conclusion of the main proceedings.

The petitioner filed an application under Section 146 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”) before the Family Court, Bhind, seeking alteration of maintenance earlier granted to the respondent by order dated 4 December 2013.

The proceedings were registered as Case No. 163/2025 M.J.C.R.

The respondent filed a reply but initially did not submit the disclosure affidavit of assets and liabilities required under Rajnesh v. Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324.

After the respondent filed the affidavit, the petitioner alleged that it contained incorrect statements regarding her income, assets and liabilities, and consequently moved an application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”)/Section 379 of the BNSS, alleging perjury.

Although the application was noted in the Family Court’s order-sheet dated 3 July 2026, no order was passed on it, and the matter was adjourned for the respondent’s reply.

The petitioner therefore invoked Article 227 of the Constitution, seeking a direction for prompt disposal of the application and contending that it should be decided before the main maintenance proceedings.

Whether an application under Section 340 CrPC/Section 379 BNSS alleging perjury must be taken up and decided during the pendency of the main proceedings, before adjudication of the substantive case.

Whether the High Court should direct the Family Court, Bhind, to decide the petitioner’s application under Section 340 CrPC/Section 379 BNSS within the period sought by the petitioner.

The Court applied Section 340 CrPC, corresponding to Section 379 BNSS, which empowers a court to conduct a preliminary inquiry and make a complaint for offences referred to in Section 195(1)(b) CrPC only where it considers such action “expedient in the interests of justice.”

Relying on the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah, (2005) 4 SCC 370, the Court held that filing a complaint under Section 340 is discretionary and is not required in every case; the court must assess the effect of the alleged offence on the administration of justice rather than merely the private injury caused to a party.

The Court further relied on the principle that such preliminary inquiry and decision are ordinarily undertaken after the proceedings before the court have concluded and the final judgment has been rendered.

The Court also noted that the procedure under Sections 341 and 343(2) CrPC may result in prolonged ancillary proceedings, which supports ordinarily deferring the Section 340 process until conclusion of the main case.

The petitioner’s allegation concerned allegedly false statements in the respondent’s disclosure affidavit filed in the pending maintenance-alteration proceedings.

However, under Iqbal Singh Marwah, the filing of a Section 340 application does not automatically require an immediate preliminary inquiry or a direction to initiate prosecution.

The Family Court retains discretion to determine whether such action is expedient in the interests of justice, ordinarily after the main proceeding has concluded.

Since the petitioner sought to compel an immediate decision during the pendency of the maintenance case, the High Court held that the relief was inconsistent with the governing Constitution Bench precedent.

The coordinate Bench decision relied upon by the petitioner was considered unhelpful because it had not taken account of Iqbal Singh Marwah, which was binding on the High Court.

It declined to direct the Family Court to decide the petitioner’s perjury application within ten days or before the main case.

Admission was declined, the Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, and a copy of the order was directed to be sent to the Principal Judge, Family Court, Bhind, for information.