Criminal Misc. No. M-36843 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-36843 of 2011 Date of Decision: 8.12.2011 Matu Ram ... Petitioner Versus Harmeet Singh and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed praying that an inquiry, envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C., be initiated and thereafter the complaint be filed to prosecute the respondents for having committed the offence of perjury and for making a wrong statement in Civil Revision No. 2343 of 2010 titled as “Sucha Singh and Others v. Jaswant Singh, decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 5.5.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned counsel for the respondent, petitioner in the aforesaid revision petition, had made a wrong statement that Tehsildar Rania, on 5.4.2010, had taken no proceedings and the physical possession of land was not taken. According to learned counsel, for making this false statement, Tehsildar Rania is facing contempt proceedings which are pending in Criminal Misc. No. M-36843 of 2011 2 the Court. Petitioner, if so advised, may take up his defence in the contempt proceedings and this Court shall refrain to comment as to whether the conduct of the respondent amounted to willful contempt or not. Suffice it to say that a litigant may, in the proceedings, take a stand which is not true. To determine as to whether the averment or submission made is true or not in each case, the Court shall not hold an inquiry as envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-36843 of 2011 3 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-36843 of 2011 4 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-36843 of 2011 5 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. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 8, 2011 “DK”