Crl. Revision No. 506 of 2008 (O&M) {1} In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 506 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision:April 24, 2009 Baljit Singh ---Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr.Krishan Singh ,Advocate, for the petitioner *** SABINA, J. Crl. Misc. No. 12242 of 2008 This is an application for condonation of delay of 10 days in filing the present revision petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application which is supported by an affidavit, this application is allowed and the delay of 10 days in filing the present revision petition is condoned. Crl. Revision No. 506 of 2008 Petitioner was tried for an offence under Sections 376, 451 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) for FIR No. 199 dated 18.10.2000 registered at Police Station Farakpur vide judgment dated 3.7.2006. Petitioner was acquitted of the charge framed against him Crl. Revision No. 506 of 2008 (O&M) {2} However, an enquiry was ordered under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.”) against respondents No. 2 to 5. Thereafter, the State filed an appeal and the respondents No. 2 to 5 filed revision petition. The said judgment was upheld by this court vide order dated 6.3.2007 (Annexure P-3). During the course of enquiry, respondents No. 2 to 5 tendered an unqualified apology before the learned Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar and vide impugned order dated 7.9.2007 the said unqualified apology tendered by respondents No. 2 to 5 and the assurance given to the Court that they shall not be a cause for concern to any citizen in future, the same was accepted by the learned Sessions Judge and the proceedings were dropped. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has suffered the trial for six years. Now the proceedings under Sections 340 Cr.P.C. has been dropped without giving him an opportunity of hearing. Learned Sessions Judge has accepted the unqualified apology and assurance given by respondents No. 2 to 4 to the effect that they shall not be a cause for concern to any citizen in future and has dropped the proceedings. Petitioner was not required to be heard during the said proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as these are a matter between the court and respondents No. 2 to 5. Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.-(1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to it in Crl. Revision No. 506 of 2008 (O&M) {3} clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceedings in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary.- (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; ( c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate (2)The powers conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of section 195. (3)A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Crl. Revision No. 506 of 2008 (O&M) {4} Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; (b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf. (4)In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 195.” Focus of this provision is formation of an opinion by the Court (before which proceedings were to be held) that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into an offence which appears to have been committed. In order to form such opinion the court is empowered to hold a preliminary enquiry. It is not pre-emptory that such preliminary inquiry should be held. Even without such preliminary inquiry the court can form such an opinion when it appears to the court that an offence has been committed in relation to a proceeding in that court. Even when the Court forms such an opinion it is not mandatory that the court should make a complaint. If a court decided to make a complaint, it should make a finding to the effect that on the fact situation it is expedient in the interest of justice that the offence should further be probed into. The court is thus required to make a complaint only if it finds it just and expedient to do so after holding an enquiry. The basic rationale is that matters concerning prosecution for contempt of lawful authority or for offence against public justice are not permitted to become tools for wreaking vengeance in the hands of private individuals. The learned Sessions Judge has decided not to make the complaint but has accepted the unqualified apology tendered by respondents No. 2 to 5 and apparently did Crl. Revision No. 506 of 2008 (O&M) {5} not find it just and expedient to make a complaint. The said order is appealable in terms of Section 341 Cr.P.C. Section 341 of the Code confers a power on the party on whose application the court has decided or not decided to make a complaint, as well as the party against whom it is decided to make such complaint, to file an appeal to the court to which the former court is subordinate. But the mere fact that such an appeal is provided , it is not a premise for concluding that the court is under a legal obligation to afford an opportunity to a person against whom the complaint would be made. Hence, no interference is called for. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE April 24, 2009 PARAMJIT