Criminal Misc. No. M-24484 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-24484 of 2009 Date of Decision: 14.11.2011 Bhupinder Kaur ... Petitioner Versus Sukhwinder Singh and Another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Rajwant Singh Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondents. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The present writ petition has been filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the respondents for having made a false statement in Court. It is urged that since there is a bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C., this Court should hold an inquiry under Section 340 Cr.P.C. Case of the petitioner is that she was married with respondent No.1-Sukhwinder Singh as per Sikh Rites and Rituals on 13.3.2006 at Gurudwara Ajitsar Sahib, Hamjapur Ratia and thereafter they cohabited as husband and wife. It is stated that during the subsistence of marriage, without seeking divorce, respondent No.1 eloped with respondent No.2- Seema Rani and performed second marriage. It is a further grievance of the petitioner that the respondents have filed Criminal Misc. No. M- Criminal Misc. No. M-24484 of 2009 2 22391 of 2009 seeking protection of the Court apprehending threat to their lives and liberty. It is further stated that in the said petition the respondents had not disclosed the factum of earlier marriage i.e. marriage of respondent No.1 with the petitioner. Hence, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents have committed the offence of perjury. 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 falsehood that is sworn to by parties in Courts there would be very little time for Courts for any serious work other than Criminal Misc. No. M-24484 of 2009 3 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 circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The Court orders Criminal Misc. No. M-24484 of 2009 4 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 prosecuted. The Court shall prosecute and punish such a litigant, when its conscience is pricked. However, the powers of the Court cannot be used Criminal Misc. No. M-24484 of 2009 5 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 14, 2011 “DK”