1 CGHC010134942026 2026:CGHC:40849 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 939 of 2026 1 - Amit Anant Jaisawal S/o Shri Anant Shriramji Jaisawal Aged About 37 Years R/o Flat No.4, Harihar Apartment Giripeth Nagpur, Maharastra 440010 ... Appellant versus 1 - Smt. Upasana Amit Jaisawal W/o Amit Anant Jaisawal Aged About 34 Years Presently R/o Chopdapara Ambikapur District- Sarguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sourabh Sahu, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Judgment on Board 18/09/2026 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/husband under Section 380 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, referred as “BNSS”) challenging the order dated 2 17/02/2026 passed by learned Family Court, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 188/2024 (Smt. Upasana Amit Jaiswal v. Amit Anant Jaiswal) whereby the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 379 of the BNSS has been rejected. 2. Facts of the case, as projected by the appellant/husband, are that the respondent/wife had filed application under Section 144 of the BNSS seeking maintenance against the appellant/husband before the Family Court, Ambikapur which was registered as Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 188/2024. In that case, the respondent/wife had filed an affidavit disclosing her movable and immovable property wherein she had made false statements with regard to her income/source of income and it was also corroborated by her in her deposition before the Family Court. Therefore, the appellant/husband filed an application before the Family Court to call for income tax returns of the respondent/wife, however, the respondent/wife failed to submit any document or return pursuant to which the appellant/husband filed an application under Section 379 of BNSS stating that since respondent/wife has concealed that fact that she is a working lady and has also not disclosed her income/source of income and has filed false affidavit before the Court, therefore, an enquiry be initiated against her under Section 379 of BNSS. However, after filing of the said application, the respondent/wife withdrew the maintenance application/Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 3 188/2024, which was duly permitted by the Family Court but on account of that, learned Family Court also rejected the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 379 of the BNSS. 3. Mr. Sourabh Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/husband, submits that learned Family Court though observed the fact that the respondent/wife had clearly violated the orders of the Court, yet allowed her to withdraw the maintenance proceedings and further proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 379 of the BNSS whereas the Family Court ought to have conducted an enquiry with regard to the false statement/affidavit filed by the respondent/wife concealing her income/source of income. Hence, he prays that the instant appeal may be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the Family Court and it be directed to initiate an enquiry against the respondent/wife under Section 379 (1) of the BNSS. 4. Per contra, Mr. Vivekanand Samaddar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/wife, submits that prior to the month of February, 2026, respondent/wife was suffering from certain illness due to which she had undergone surgery on her face, therefore, upon facing difficulty in appearing before the Family Court, she had to withdraw her maintenance application. He further submits that she had not concealed her income/source of income and no false statement or false affidavit has been filed by her and absolutely nothing has been brought on record by the 4 appellant/husband before the Family Court to demonstrate the fact that respondent/wife had concealed her income/source of income. It is also submitted that since maintenance case itself has been withdrawn by the respondent/wife, the interim application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 379 of BNSS cannot survive as the main case itself was disposed of by the Family Court on account of withdrawal of the same. Therefore, the instant appeal is sans merit and it deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is alleged by the appellant/husband that, in the aforesaid maintenance case bearing Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 188/2024 (Smt. Upasana Amit Jaiswal v. Amit Anant Jaiswal), the respondent/wife had filed a false affidavit concealing her income/source of income and had also made false statements in her deposition recorded before the Family Court. 7. Sections 229 to 233 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter, referred as “BNS”) provides punishment for false evidence, giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence, giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, threatening any person to give false evidence and using evidence known to be false. 8. In the present case, the allegation of the appellant/husband is that the respondent/wife had filed a false affidavit concealing her 5 income/source of income. However, the said issue has not been adjudicated finally by the Family Court rather the application filed by the appellant/husband under Section 379 of the BNSS was rejected, being an interlocutory application, in view of the fact that the substantive proceedings, i.e. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 188/2024 (Smt. Upasana Amit Jaiswal v. Amit Anant Jaiswal) had already been dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the respondent/wife. 9. Even otherwise, Section 379 of the BNSS provides for the procedure in cases mentioned in Section 215 and it is hereby reproduced as under :- “ Procedure in cases mentioned in section 215. 379. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub -section (1) of section 215, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be. in respect of a document after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,- (a) record a finding to that effect: (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is 6 subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 215. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf. (4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 215.” 10. A careful perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that if any application is made to the Court in respect of commission of offence as mentioned in Section 215 of the BNSS, if the Court is of the opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be initiated, then the concerned Court may initiate such enquiry as contemplated under Section 379 of the BNSS. 11. In the instant case, it is found that since the original case i.e. Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 188/2024 (Smt. Upasana Amit Jaiswal v. Amit Anant Jaiswal), in itself, was dismissed as withdrawn at the instance of the respondent/wife, therefore, learned Family Court declined to take action against the respondent/wife or initiate an enquiry under Section 379 of the BNSS. 12. Having considered the aforesaid fact as well as the statutory provisions contained under Sections 215 and 379 of BNSS, this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Family Court warranting interference in the present appeal. 7 13. Consequently, this criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed at the motion stage. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) JUDGE Harneet