Criminal Misc. No. M-34326 of 2011 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-34326 of 2011 Date of Decision: 17.11.2011 Saroj Bala ... Petitioner Versus Parwinder Kaur alias Meenu Puri ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed praying that this Court should initiate an inquiry envisaged under Section 340 Cr.P.C. and prosecute the respondent for the offence of perjury as at her bidding, her counsel had made a false statement in Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner, has further submitted that on one occasion, the respondent had also made a statement before this Court, which was not true and hence anticipatory bail, filed by the petitioner, was adjourned on numerous occasions. It is further submitted that since there is a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., therefore, this Court should hold an inquiry and lodge a complaint for prosecution of the respondent. It is a case of matrimonial dispute. The petitioner is a mother- in-law, whereas respondent, who is a daughter-in-law, had lodged an Criminal Misc. No. M-34326 of 2011 2 FIR against the family members of the respondent for the offence under Sections 406 and 498A IPC. The anticipatory bail application, filed by petitioner, was adjourned due to the statement made by the respondent, which, according to the counsel, as per documents attached with this petition, was untrue. Litigants do make wrong statements in the Court but at the same time, the Courts cannot use the same as a platform for settling the vengeance, between the parties. Personal vendetta will not compel the Court to initiate action. 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-34326 of 2011 3 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 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-34326 of 2011 4 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...” Furthermore, this Court, in Criminal Misc. No. M-8928 of 2010, titled as “Tarun v. Manoj Kumar” (decided on 13.10.2011), 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-34326 of 2011 5 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. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge November 17, 2011 “DK”