Criminal Misc. No.M-32437 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-32437 of 2010 Date of Decision : 12.07.2011 Vijay Lata .... Petitioner Versus Sarvanand Arya & another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Petitioner in person. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for Respondent No.2. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) This is petition under Section 340 read with 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr. P. C.) for granting sanction for prosecution of the respondents for offences under Sections 193, 204, 420, 468 and 500 read with Section 34 of IPC. The petitioner was appointed as Lecturer by Kurukshetra University against leave vacancy-temporary reserved for Scheduled Castes. Petitioner's services were terminated on 02.02.1993. Petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.1986 of 1993 in this Court challenging the termination of her services. The said writ petition was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.03.1993. Respondents herein were Vice-Chancellor and Registrar respectively of the University at the relevant time. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 filed false affidavit in reply to the aforesaid writ petition resulting in dismissal Criminal Misc. No.M-32437 of 2010 -2- of the writ petition. It is thus alleged that respondents committed the aforesaid offences by filing false affidavit. The petitioner had filed criminal complaint No.231 of 2003 before Chief Judicial Magistrate but the said criminal complaint stands dismissed for want of sanction under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Accordingly the petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant petition. I have heard the petitioner in person and learned counsel for respondent No.2 and perused the case file. At the outset, it has to be noticed that the petitioner had previously filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-46849 of 2007 in CWP No. 1986 of 1993 seeking practically the same relief i.e. for trial, conviction and punishment of the respondents for filing the aforesaid affidavit. The said petition stands dismissed by this court vide order dated 27.09.2010. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner has filed the instant petition on 30.10.2010. In these circumstances, the instant petition is nothing but gross abuse of process of court. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed with costs. However, I am refraining from imposing costs on the petitioner who is appearing in person. It may be added that prima facie, the affidavit filed by respondent No.2 in the writ petition cannot be said to be false because the resolution of the University was produced in the writ petition and the same was perused by this Court and it was thereafter that the writ petition was dismissed. Petitioner even approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in that case but petition for special leave to appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. Consequently, it cannot be said that any offence as alleged by the petitioner was prima Criminal Misc. No.M-32437 of 2010 -3- facie committed by the respondents by filing the aforesaid affidavit in the writ petition. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition, which is completely misconceived. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is advised to desist from generating such unnecessary litigation. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 12th July, 2011 'raj'