Criminal Misc. No. M-7483 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-7483 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.10.2011 Samu Masih ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mrs. Avinash Mandla, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking action against respondent No.2 Vijay alias Toni and respondent No.3-Kiran, who admittedly had performed their marriage. A grievance of the petitioner is that both respondent No.2-Vijay alias Tony and respondent No.3-Kiran, daughter of the petitioner, had made wrong averments regarding their age in Criminal Misc. No. 4376-M of 2011. According to learned counsel, the above said petition was disposed of vide order dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure P1), passed by a Co- Criminal Misc. No. M-7483 of 2011 2 ordinate Bench of this Court, by issuing directions to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur, to personally look into the allegations contained in the said petition. It will be pertinent to notice that in the order (Annexure P1), it has been specifically observed as under:- “...This order shall not be construed to be conferring the legitimacy or authenticity to the factum of marriage having been performed as the Court is clearly deprived of any means to determine the aforesaid facts...” A grievance of the petitioner is that his daughter and her husband had made false averments regarding their age in Court and hence they should be prosecuted for the said offence. This Court, in Major Bakshish Singh Dhillon v. Harwinder Singh (Criminal Misc. No.30448-M of 2009, decided on 13.10.2011), 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-7483 of 2011 3 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 observations made in Major Bakshish Singh Dhillon's case (supra), no further directions are called for and the present petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 13, 2011 “DK”