1 Apeal 100-2011 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100 OF 2011 Bhagatraj G. Ahuja .Appellant V/s. Sandeep Manoharlal Chawla & ors .Respondents Mr.B.G.Ahuja, Appellant-in-person present Mr.S.A.Shaikh, APP, for Respondent No.3 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 25TH JULY, 2011 P.C. . Heard the appellant-in-person and the learned APP for respondent No.3  State. 2. This is an appeal under Section 341 of the Code of Criminal Procedure questioning the Order passed by the learned Judge, Family Court No.3, Pune, rejecting the appellant's application for prosecuting the petitioner Sandeep Manoharlal Chawla. Sandeep Chawla had filed a proceedings before the family Court against his wife Jiya Sandeep Chawla. The appellant is not a party to proceedings. 2 Apeal 100-2011 According to the appellant, the petitioner had stated before the family Court that Jiya Chawla had denied to have obtained divorce from her first husband Vishal Meghwani by a decree of divorce, though no such decree was ever passed in support of his Petition. This according to the appellant amounted to producing false, fabricated and forged evidence before the family Court. It had been alleged that the Petitioner - Sandeep's claim that the respondents had concealed from the petitioner the document in respect of the first marriage of respondents was devoid of truth. Therefore, the present appellant obtained requisite copies from Gurdwara Gurunanak Darbar to show that petitioner knew of the divorce and sought prosecution of the petitioners before the family Court by requesting the family Court to make a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pune. 3 Apeal 100-2011 3. The learned Judge, Family Court held that normally, a direction for filing a complaint is not made during the pendency of the proceeding before the court and this is done at the stage when the proceeding is concluded and the final Judgment is rendered. Aggrieved by dismissal of his application, the appellant is before this Court. Since the appellant is not an advocate and since he was heard without any progress being made in my understanding as to what he sought convey, he was asked to file written notes of argument which he has done. 4. I have gone through those notes of argument. The appellant has annexed to his notes a number of Judgments to support his contention that the learned Judge, family Court could not have taken the view that it did. First, the appellant-in-person submitted that Criminal law set can be in motion by anyone and therefore, it was not necessary 4 Apeal 100-2011 that only a party before the family Court i. e. either husband or wife, could have complained about tendering false and fabricated evidence. He next submitted that it was not necessary for the family Court to wait till the decision of the lis before the family Court for filing a complaint in respect of the false evidence which was brought to its notice. He also submitted that it was totally unnecessary for the family Court to hear the proposed accused in the matter of filing the complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. 5. There can be absolutely no doubt about the legal propositions which are advanced. But the question is whether the learned Judge, family Court erred in holding that the question as to whether conclusion that false and fabricated evidence was in fact tendered must await final adjudication of lis. In this appeal the grievance is that petitioner had 5 Apeal 100-2011 falsely stated that respondent wife had misrepresented that she had been divorced by a decree of divorce when she was in fact not so divorced. The appellant states the petitioner husband knew that wife was divorced and had in fact filed these papers while booking marriage hall/Gurudwara. For this purpose he had produced two documents from Gurudwara and Poona Camp Sikh Association. None of these documents show that a decree of divorce of respondent wife was produced. The first document by Gurudwara Guru Nanak Darbar mentions only Divorce Case and not decree. Document from Poona Camp Sikh Association shows that divorce papers were produced which may or may not include copy of divorce decree. Hence, this would obviously have to await trial. The learned Judge rightly held that at that stage a complaint about filing of false and fabricated evidence could not be made. Appreciation of one piece of evidence at a time would result in failure of the Judge 6 Apeal 100-2011 to see the entire case in proper perspective, after the evidence was tendered by both the parties. Therefore, it is not that the appellant is precluded from raising his grievances. But the stage at which the appellant has chosen to press his application was not inappropriate. Therefore, view taken by the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse or improbable. Leave refused. 6. Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)