-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3168 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3168 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.3168 OF 2007 Smt. Satyavati R.Ruia, .. Petitioner. Vs M/s New India Assurance Co.Ltd .. Respondent. Smt.G.S.Godbole i/b Mr R.Arumugam, for the petitioner. Mr Prakash G. Lad for the respondent. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. CORAM : D.B.Bhosale,J. DATE : 10.03.08. DATE : 10.03.08. DATE : 10.03.08. PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This petition is directed against an order dated 21.7.2007, by which the interim notice taken out by the petitioner against New India Assurance Company Limited, the defendants, in TER Suit No.193/206 of 2003, has been discharged. The notice was taken out by the petitioners seeking direction to lodge criminal prosecution against the defendants for committing perjury by making false statements on oath before the court. Mr Godbole, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, invited my attention to the affidavit in which the defendant has allegedly made false statements on oath so also to the impugned order and submitted that the observations made by the learned Judge in the impugned order are based on incorrect facts. The observations in -2- the order that the affiant was not going to get any personal benefit by making false statements, cannot be sustained in law merely because the statements were made on behalf of her employer. I perused the order and the other material placed before this Court. The petitioner may be right in contending that the defendants made false/incorrect statements on affidavit, but as rightly observed in the impugned order, they have not defeated the ends of justice and, therefore, in the opinion of the learned Judge this is not a fit case wherein prosecution is necessary to be directed against the defendant. For arriving at this conclusion, the learned Judge has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court report in AIR 1973 SC 2190. In this judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly observed that 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 Supreme Court has further observed that the court orders prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. In the present case, it appears that the proceedings pertaining to mesne profits are still -3- pending between the parties. Taking overall view of the matter, in my opinion, the impugned order warrants no interference by this Court in its writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.) (D.B.Bhosale,J.)