Criminal Misc. No. M-36981 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-36981 of 2011 Date of Decision: 9.12.2011 Krishan Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vishal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present petition, a prayer has been made that this Court should hold an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and prosecute respondent No.4-Mandeep Singh for having submitted a wrong affidavit in Court regarding his age. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.5-Rajni, daughter of the petitioner, had performed marriage with respondent No.4-Mandeep Singh and had approached the Court by filing Criminal Misc. No. M-33540 of 2011 titled as “Rajni and Another v. State of Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others”, wherein it was averred that they perceived threat to their lives from the hands of the petitioner. In support of their age, respondent No.4-Mandeep Singh had annexed his affidavit, whereas respondent No.5-Rajni had annexed her Criminal Misc. No. M-36981 of 2011 2 Certificate of Secondary School Examination 2011. In his affidavit, respondent No.4 stated that he is 22 years of age. According to learned counsel, as per the mark sheet issued by National Institute of Open Schooling, respondent No.4-Mandeep Singh was aged 19 years. In view of the above, learned counsel has contended that respondent No.4 has committed the offence of perjury and this Court should file a complaint to prosecute him. This Court will not examine as to whether any such offence of perjury is made out or not as in that regard in Criminal Misc. No. 902 of 2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1173 of 2009 titled as “Balkar Singh v. State of Punjab and Others” (decided on 19.1.2011), it was held as under:- “...The present application has been filed, after disposal of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that Balkar Singh may be taken to task for making false averments in the writ petition. It is prayed that the inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. be initiated and Balkar Singh 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 340 Cr.P.C. be invoked. In Thomman v. IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and Others, 1994 Criminal Law Journal 48, it was observed as under:- “3....If the Court is to notice every Criminal Misc. No. M-36981 of 2011 3 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 Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and another, AIR 1973 SC 2190: “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 Criminal Misc. No. M-36981 of 2011 4 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-8928 of 2010, titled as “Tarun v. Manoj Kumar” (decided on 13.10.2011), had observed as under:- “...The legislation in its wisdom has specifically laid a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-36981 of 2011 5 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. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 9, 2011 “DK”