IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-2314 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 13th October, 2011 Pat Ram … Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Paramjit Singh Jammu, Advocate for respondents No.6 and 7. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying that for filing a false affidavit regarding the date of birth of respondent No.6 in Criminal Misc. No.M-30967 of 2010 filed in this Court, respondent No.7 be prosecuted for making a false statement in this Court and therefore, an enquiry be held as envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and a complaint be lodged against respondents No.6 and 7. Admittedly, respondent No.6-Saroj Devi is daughter of the petitioner. She had performed marriage with respondent No.7 according to her free will and accord. Both, respondents No.6 and 7, had filed Criminal Misc. No.M-30967 of 2010 in this Court, which led this Court to pass an order (Annexure P-4) dated 15th October, 2010. Relevant portion of the order (Annexure P-4) reads as under: “The petitioners claiming themselves to be major, submitted that they have performed their marriage against Criminal Misc. No. M-2314 of 2011 (O&M) the wishes of the parents. They apprehend danger to their lives from respondent Nos.6 and 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record and without commenting and expressing any opinion with regard to the age of the parties and the validity of their marriage, respondent Nos.2 to 5 are restrained from taking petitioner No.2 (husband) into custody, pertaining to the allegations that he has kidnapped, abducted and raped petitioner No.1 (wife), without recording her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. They are further directed to protect their lives and liberty, in view of the observations of this Court in case Pardeep Kumar and another Versus State of Haryana and others, 2008(3) RCR (Criminal) 376. At the same time, respondent Nos.6 and 7 are restrained from interfering in the peaceful living/lives of the petitioners.” Counsel for the petitioner states that the correct date of birth of his daughter-respondent No.6 is 12th August, 1993, whereas in the affidavit furnished by her she has mentioned the same to be 12th August, 1991. A perusal of the order (Annexure P-4) reveals that this Court had expressed no opinion regarding the age of the parties or validity of their marriage. Even a minor, who has performed marriage, is entitled to protection as per the judgment of this Court rendered in ‘Poonam and another v. State of Haryana and others’ (Criminal Misc. No.M-12767 of 2011, decided on 3rd May, 2011) as it was held therein that the Court cannot permit those who are against the said marriage to lynch the minor. Furthermore, it has been held by the Courts that the platform of Court cannot be used for settlement of revenge or a grievance of the complainant (petitioner herein). Number of litigants do make false 2 Criminal Misc. No. M-2314 of 2011 (O&M) statements in the Court proceedings but each and every litigant is not taken to task. It is for the Court to punish the litigant wherever necessary to ward off making of false statements. In each and every case, the Court will not punish the litigant by holding an enquiry. Taking totality of circumstances into consideration, no further directions are called for in the present petition. The same stands disposed of accordingly. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE October 13, 2011 rps 3