Crl. Misc. No.M-31937 of 2009 - 1 - . IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-31937 of 2009 Date of Decision: 08.07.2011. Raj Balwinder Singh @ Balwinder Singh ……Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …...Respondents Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab for respondents. L.N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Raj Balwinder Singh @ Balwinder Singh has filed this petition under Section 482 read with Sections 182(2) and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C) for making complaint against respondent Nos.4 and 5 for their prosecution. It is alleged in the petition that respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed criminal Misc. No. M- 11325 of 2009 Annexure P-10 in this Court wherein it was alleged that respondent No.4 was unmarried before she performed marriage with respondent No.5, but in fact respondent No.4 was already married with the petitioner and had two issues out of the said wedlock. Respondent No.5 was, however, given up. Crl. Misc. No.M-31937 of 2009 - 2 - Notice of motion was issued to respondent No.4 only, but respondent No.4 has not yet been served. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to refer to any averment in petition Annexure P-10, filed by respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein, to the effect that respondent No.4 herein claimed herself to be unmarried prior to her marriage with respondent No.5 herein. Consequently, no such false averment as alleged by the petitioner in the instant petition was made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 herein in their petition Annexure P-10. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that respondent No.4 misled this Court by filing petition Annexure P- 10 by concealing the material fact of her earlier marriage with the petitioner and birth of two issues out of the said wedlock. However, on pointed and repeated inquiry, counsel for the petitioner is unable to tell as to what offence has been committed by respondent No.4 by alleged concealment for which criminal complaint is required to be filed by this court by exercising power under Section 340 Cr.P.C. On the contrary, Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) prescribes punishment for giving false evidence. In the instant case, there is no averment that respondent No.4 gave any false evidence. False evidence has been defined in Section 191 IPC to inter alia mean a statement which is false. In the instant case, Crl. Misc. No.M-31937 of 2009 - 3 - counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any false statement allegedly made by respondent No.4 in petition Annexure P-10. For the reasons aforesaid, I find that prima facie no offence for which criminal complaint may be required to be filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C is shown to have been committed by respondent No.4. The instant petition is completely misconceived and meritless and is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that this order is without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to avail of any remedy in accordance with law for prosecution of respondent Nos.4 and 5 for alleged offence of bigamy. (L. N. MITTAL) JUDGE 08.07.2011. A.kaundal