Crl. Misc. No. M-15861 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-15861 of 2011 Date of Decision : July 05, 2011 Lalita Chawla alias Kajal Chawla .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. Jagmohan S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Lalita Chawla alias Kajal Chawla has filed the instant petition under Section 340 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short – Cr.P.C.) for taking action against respondents no.5 and 6 for making false statement in affidavit and concealing material facts from the Court. It is alleged that the petitioner is married with respondent no.6, but respondents no.5 and 6 filed petition Annexure P-4 in this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. alleging that respondent no.6 has married with respondent no.5. It is alleged that in their said petition, respondents no.5 Crl. Misc. No. M-15861 of 2011 2 and 6 concealed the factum of earlier marriage of respondent no.6 with the petitioner. It is also alleged that marriage of respondent no.6 with respondent no.5 is null and void because respondent no.5 is niece of respondent no.6 being daughter of first cousin of respondent no.6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that respondents no.5 and 6 have committed offence punishable under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) because in their petition accompanied by affidavit, respondents no.5 and 6 concealed the material fact of earlier marriage of respondent no.6 with the petitioner. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. `False evidence', as defined in Section 191 IPC, means making of false statement. In the instant case, it is not depicted as to what false statement was made by respondents no.5 and 6 in their petition Annexure P-4. Even if it be assumed for the sake of argument that they did not disclose the factum of earlier marriage of respondent no.6 with the petitioner in their petition Annexure P-4, it would not amount to giving false evidence within the meaning of Section 191 IPC. Consequently, it cannot be said that respondents no.5 and 6 have committed offence punishable under Section 193 IPC. Crl. Misc. No. M-15861 of 2011 3 For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the instant petition nor it is expedient in the interest of justice to hold an inquiry into the matter as required by Section 340 Cr.P.C. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine. July 05, 2011 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE