Criminal Misc. No.M-27706 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-27706 of 2011 Date of Decision : 14th September, 2011 Tribhwan .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present : Mr. Tribhwan petitioner in person. * * * * L.N.MITTAL, J. (ORAL) Tribhwan has filed instant petition under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.) for filing criminal complaint against respondent No.2 Rakesh Gupta, Advocate. It is alleged in the petition that Santro-respondent No.3 herein filed criminal miscellaneous No.15059-M of 2003. Her purported affidavit was also annexed with the said petition. Allegation of the petitioner herein is that the said affidavit and vakalatnama filed in the said petition were actually not signed by Santro-respondent No.3 herein. I have heard the petitioner in person and perused the case file. The petitioner contended that the affidavit and vakalatnama in the aforesaid previous petition purport to have been signed by the person who had scribed the original affidavit in Hindi and not by Santro and therefore, the said signatures are forged ones. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but I find no sufficient ground for filing complaint under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as it would not be expedient in the interest of justice to do so. Aforesaid criminal Criminal Misc. No.M-27706 of 2011 -2- miscellaneous No.15059-M of 2003 was disposed of vide order dated 05.07.2004 in the presence of present petitioner Tribhwan who was arrayed as respondent No.2 in the said petition. However, the present petition has been filed on 08.09.2011 i.e. after expiry of more than seven years after the disposal of the previous petition. This long delay itself is sufficient to dismiss the instant petition under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It appears that the petitioner herein is a court bird as large number of petitions are said to be pending in this Court as detailed in paragraph 2 of the petition. There appears to be some dispute between petitioner and respondent No.3. For settling the same, Courts cannot be used as battle ground by the parties. Delay of more than seven years in filing the instant petition without any explanation for the same, is sufficient to dismiss the instant petition. In addition to the aforesaid, prima facie there is nothing on record to depict that affidavit and vakalatnama in the previous petition were not signed by Santro herself. Santro has never disowned the same during this long period. It is also worth mentioning that in the instant petition, action has been sought against respondent No.2 Rakesh Gupta, Advocate only through whom the previous petition had been filed by Santro, but no action has been sought against Santro herself who although has been arrayed as respondent No.3. The instant petition does not appear to be bona fide For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition, which is accordingly dismissed in limine. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 14th September, 2011 'raj'