Final Order 7

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: 33
CC No.1261-2024
Udit Mittal Vs. Pooja Garg
/0 ()
13.12.2025
Present: Complainant with Ld. Counsel Sh. Usman Chaudhary.
Matter is listed for orders on maintainability of the present application
u/S 175(3) BNSS and complaint u/S 223 BNSS.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant and
proposed are lawfully wedded and due to disputes between them, a petition had
been filed by the proposed accused before Ld. Mahila Court, West Delhi under the
PWDV Act in which, she had filed her income and assets affidavit on 08.07.2022
under her signature, same being duly attested by the oath commissioner. It has
been submitted that another affidavit has been filed by the proposed accused
before the Ld. Principal Judge, Family Court, West, THC in Case No. 332/2020,
on 16.03.2024, along with reply to the application of the complainant filed u/S 340
CrPC, before the Court of Ld. Mahila Court on 29.06.2024. It has been alleged
that in view of the second affidavit, it is crystal clear that the proposed accused has
intentionally concealed her professional qualifications, various source of earnings.
Reliance has been placed upon the “Declaration”following the relevant details of
the said affidavit s per which if the deponent does not disclose full and accurate
information regarding their respective income, expenditure, assets and liabilities
from all sources, then the deponent shall not only face punishment for contempt
but shall also be liable u/S 227,229,236,246 BNS. It has been further submitted
that the application moved by the complainant before the concerned court u/S 340
CrPC read with Section 95 CrPC is pending adjudication. It has been thus alleged
that directions be issued to the SHO concerned for registration of FIR against the
alleged u/S 227,229,236,246 BNS. In this regard, it has been further submitted that
-- 1 of 3 --
complaint was made to the SHO concerned, with a copy to the DCP Central but in
vain.
ATR has been filed by EO/SI Kiranpal Singh duly forwarded by the
SHO concerned, as per which the alleged was enquired, who had submitted that
both the above affidavits filed by her before the Ld. Mahila Court and the Ld.
Family Court on 08.07.2022 and on 16.03.2024, respectively, were filled up be her
as per the legal advice of her counsel and that she had not concealed any
information. She had also stated that this Court has no jurisdiction to decide the
question in the present complaint, as the complainant herein has already filed an
application u/S 340 CrPC before the concerned Court. It has been concluded by
the EO that no offence has been made out in the present case.
During the course of arguments on maintainability of the present
complaint, learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon the judgment
passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled
S.C. Garg vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh
(Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2018, pronounced on 16.04.2025), to support his
contention that the present private complaint is maintainable since the principle of
res judicata does not apply in a criminal matter.
Heard. Record perused.
At the outset, it is pertinent to clearly state the objection qua
maintainability of the present case and the same is “Whether the present private
complaint u/S 223 BNSS is maintainable in view of the bar u/S 215 BNSS”. The
caselaw relied upon by the complainant has no application to the present
complaint, since the question in issue does not pertain to applicability of res
judicata. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has already moved an
application u/S 340 CrPC for initiation of prosecution against the proposed
accused for perjury before the concerned Court in the income and assets affidavit
filed by her. It is a settled position of law that in a case where the primary offence
is perjury, the bar of section 195 CrPC will still apply and a private complaint in
-- 2 of 3 --
this regard is barred. In the present case, the allegations are that the proposed
accused filed two distinct income and asset affidavits before two different Courts
and could be seen from the latter affidavit that the complaint has concealed
material information about her qualifications and sources of income in the first
income affidavit despite giving an undertaking of sort in the affidavit itself that
liability u/S191/193/199/209 IPC shall be attracted in case she makes a false
statement. The question whether the proposed accused has made a false statement
on the alleged sworn affidavit, shall be decided by the Court where the said
affidavit was filed and purported to be used for adjudication in of application u/S
23 PWDV Act and later for evidence. Thus, it is evident that the allegations are
that of making a false document for the purpose of it being used as evidence in a
proceeding. Therefore, filing of the alleged false affidavit in form of a false
evidence before the Ld. Mahila Court would attract the provisions of section
192/193/199/209 IPC (i.e., Sections 227,229,236,246 BNS) and the instant private
complaint qua the same before the this Court is not maintainable.
Accordingly, since cognizance of the present complaint is barred u/S
215(1)(b)(i) BNSS, present application u/S 175(3) BNSS (Section 156(3) CrPC)
and complaint u/S 223 BNSS (Section 200 CrPC) are disposed of as dismissed.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(Preeti Rajoria)
JMFC-07/Central District
Delhi/13.12.2025
-- 3 of 3 --