Criminal Misc. No. M-4349 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-4349 of 2011 Date of Decision: 7.11.2011 Sneha Thakur ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta and Ms. Sonal Datta, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. Ramneek Vasudev, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. praying that an inquiry be initiated against respondent No.2-Anita Kumari and respondent No.3-Durga Devi for having made false averments in Criminal Misc. No. M-19960 of 2009 titled as “Anita Kumari v. State of Punjab” decided on 18.8.2009 vide order (Annexure P7). It is a case of matrimonial dispute. The petitioner was married with Anil Kumar. She had lodged the case F.I.R. No.186 dated 25.11.2003, registered at Police Station Division No. 8, Ludhiana, under Sections 406 and 498-A IPC against the petitioner, Anita Kumari, sister- in-law and Durga Devi, mother-in-law, who are impleaded as respondents No.2 and 3 to the present petition. It is stated that Criminal Misc. No. M-4349 of 2011 2 respondents No.2 and 3 had filed a petition (Annexure P6) i.e. Criminal Misc. No. M-19960 of 2009 in this Court. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the following averments were made:- “7. That at present the petitioner is employed at Noida near New Delhi and is required to attend the trial Court on each date of hearing. 8. That due to difficulty in coming from her place of work, the petitioner has to file application for exemption of personal appearance. However, the trial Court grants exemption for one date only and in this way application has to be moved on every date.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the averments made in the above said paragraphs No.7 and 8 of Criminal Misc. No. M- 19960 of 2009 and in the order (Annexure P7) that respondent No.2 is doing Ph.D at Bangalore were false, as on those dates respondent No.2 was in United States of America. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.2 has committed an offence under Section 193, 199 and 200 IPC. This Court will not examine as to whether any such offence is made out or not as in Criminal Misc. No. 902 of 2010 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1173 of 2009, it was held as under:- “...The present application has been filed, after disposal of the writ petition, wherein it is stated that Balkar Singh may be taken to task for making false averments in the writ petition. It is prayed that the Criminal Misc. No. M-4349 of 2011 3 inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. be initiated and Balkar Singh be prosecuted for the offence of perjury and creating false evidence. It is not a law that for making every false statement the delinquent litigant must be punished and the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C. be invoked. In Thomman v. IInd Addl. Sessions Judge, Ernakulam and Others, 1994 Criminal Law Journal 48, it was observed as under:- “3....If the Court is to notice every falsehood that is sworn to by parties in Courts there would be very little time for Courts for any serious work other than directing prosecution for perjury. Again, the edge of such weapon would become blunted by indiscriminate use. The gravity of the false statement, the circumstances under which such statement is made, the object of making such statement and its tendency to implead and impair the normal flow of the course of justice are matters for consideration when the Court decides on the propriety of instituting a complaint for perjury.” In the context reference may Criminal Misc. No. M-4349 of 2011 4 also be made to the following observations of the Supreme Court in Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and another, AIR 1973 SC 2190: “11...Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the Court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The Court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to grafity feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. Too frequent prosecutions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely, that the Court should direct prosecution...” Criminal Misc. No. M-4349 of 2011 5 Furthermore, this Court, in Criminal Misc. No. M-8928 of 2010, titled as “Tarun v. Manoj Kumar”, had observed 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...” In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the view that no ground is made out to hold an inquiry, as prayed for and hence the present petition is hereby dismissed. Anything stated in this Court may not be construed as expression of any opinion on the inter se litigation pending between the parties. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 7, 2011 “DK”