Criminal Misc. No. M-17717 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-17717 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.11.2011 [ENTITY] Petitioner Versus [ENTITY] and Others Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. [ENTITY], Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. [ENTITY], Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. None for respondents No.2 and .3. [ENTITY], J. (Oral)
Petitioner is father of respondent No.3-[ENTITY], who is stated to have performed marriage against his wishes with respondent No.2- [ENTITY]. A grievance has been made in the present petition that a newly married couple i.e. respondents No.2 and 3 have approached this Court seeking protection and filed a [CASE NUMBER] to this effect. It is further stated that in the said petition, they gave wrong date of birth of respondent No.3-[ENTITY]. According to learned counsel, respondent No.3 had not attained majority and was 17 years old but in the Court it has been stated that she has become major.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for making a wrong averment in [CASE NUMBER], both respondents No.2 and 3 have committed an offence for which they are required to be prosecuted and since there is a bar under [SECTION] [ACT], this Court should hold an inquiry.
This Court will not examine as to whether any such offence is made out or not as in [CASE NUMBER] in [CASE NUMBER], it was held as under:-
" The present application has been filed, after disposal of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that [ENTITY] may be taken to task for making false averments in the writ petition. It is prayed that the inquiry under [SECTION] [ACT] be initiated and [ENTITY] be prosecuted for the offence of perjury and creating false evidence. It is not a law that for making every false statement the delinquent litigant must be punished and the provisions of [SECTION] [ACT] be invoked. In [PRECEDENT], it was observed as under:-
"3 If the Court is to notice every falsehood that is sworn to by parties in Courts there would be very little time for Courts for any serious work other than directing prosecution for perjury. Again, the edge of such weapon would become blunted by indiscriminate use. The gravity of the false statement, the circumstances under which such statement is made, the object of making such statement and its tendency to implead and impair the normal flow of the course of justice are matters for consideration when the Court decides on the propriety of instituting a complaint for perjury."
In the context reference may also be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in [PRECEDENT]:
"11 Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the Court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The Court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to grafity feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely, that the Court should direct prosecution "
Furthermore, this Court, in [CASE NUMBER], titled as "[PRECEDENT]" (decided on 13.10.2011), had observed as under:-
" The legislation in its wisdom has specifically laid a bar under [SECTION] [ACT] not to prosecute each and every litigant. The offence, if any, has been committed against the Court. It is a common knowledge that the litigants do make wrong statements in the Court proceedings. For each and every wrong statement, each litigant cannot be prosecuted. The Court shall prosecute and punish such a litigant, when its conscience is pricked. However, the powers of the Court cannot be used for settlement of personal revenge or vengeance. To maintain majesty of law, it is necessary that in each and every complaint, the prosecution is not initiated and the Courts are not flooded with such kind of litigation "
In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out to hold an inquiry, as prayed for and hence the present petition is hereby dismissed.
([ENTITY]) Judge November 9, 2011 "DK"