IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-23551 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 17th October, 2011 Sanjeev Soni and another … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Sandeep S. Majithia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Dinesh Trehan, Advocate for respondents No.7 and 8. None for the remaining respondents. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for initiating an enquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and to prosecute the respondents for having sworn a wrong affidavit in this Court and making a false statement regarding the date of birth of Ashmita Soni, daughter of the petitioners. Case of the petitioners is that on 25th July, 2010 their daughter Ashmita Soni was enticed away by Saurav Sharma with active connivance and support of respondents No.5 to 10 from New Delhi. At that time, Ashmita Soni was aged 16 ½ years as her date of birth is 14th November, 1993. It is further case of the petitioners that Ashmita Soni along with her husband Saurav Sharma had instituted a petition viz. Criminal Misc. No.M-22151 of 2010 seeking protection of the Court as Criminal Misc. No. M-23551 of 2010 (O&M) the newly married couple apprehended threat to their lives from the present petitioners. This Court vide its order dated August 3, 2010 (Annexure P-4) without expressing any opinion with regard to the age of the parties or validity of their marriage, had directed the Senior Superintendent of Police, Batala to look into their representation and decide the same. This Court in an order dated January 19, 2011 passed 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’ has relied upon ‘Thomman v. IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and Others’ 1994 Criminal Law Journal 48, wherein a further reliance has been placed upon ‘Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and another’ AIR 1973 SC 2190 to hold that each and every case of making a false statement before the court will not call for prosecution of the litigant committing the offence of perjury. Furthermore, this Court in ‘Tarun v. Manoj Kumar’ (Criminal Misc. No.M-8928 of 2010 decided on 13th October, 2011) has held 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 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. 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-23551 of 2010 (O&M) In view of the above, no directions are called for and the present petition is disposed of.” Thus, in view of the provisions of law which have been stated above, no directions are called for in the present petition and the same is disposed of accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 17, 2011 rps 3