Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vijender Singh Malik
Crl. Appeal No.530-SB of 2009(O&M)
Sanjay Gupta
v.
Smt. Laxmi Gupta & Anr.
{Decided on 06/12/2012}
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.195 & 340--Perjury--False Documents--Enquiry--Every falsehood that is sworn to by the parties in courts would not have to be proceeded against --Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution and it has been clearly laid down that court has to order prosecution in the larger interest of the administration of justice and not to gratify feelings of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party--Indian Penal Code, 1860 S. 191. (Para 13)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.195 & 340--Perjury--False Documents--Enquiry--Appellant contended that after getting divorce from his wife, she filed petitions u/s 25 and 25 of Hindu Marriage Act and S.18 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, despite the fact that she had re-married before filing such petitions--Held; Appellant had not placed on record a copy that petition to prove that the same had been filed after wife had re-married and that the averments she made in petition were false--No case for initiation of proceedings u/s 340 CrPC made out--Impugned order upheld--Appeal dismissed. (Para 14)
Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Crl. Misc. No.10611 of 2009
In view of the explanation given in the application, delay of 105 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
Miscellaneous application is disposed of accordingly.
Crl. Appeal No. 530-SB of 2009
1. Sanjay Gupta, the appellant has brought this appeal challenging the decision of learned Additional District Judge, Rewari dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) vide which application filed by the appellant under section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating prosecution against Smt. Laxmi Gupta and her counsel Mr. Raj Pal Chaudhary, Advocate has been dismissed.
2. Sanjay Gupta, the appellant was married with Smt. Laxmi Gupta in the year 1995. On account of some matrimonial problems, Sanjay Gupta, the appellant filed a petition for a decree of divorce which was decreed ex-parte against Laxmi Gupta on 10.05.1999. Thereafter, Laxmi Gupta filed petitions under sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. By making statements on 29.05.2004 Laxmi Gupta got the petition dismissed as withdrawn.
3. Application under section 340 Cr.P.C. was then made by the appellant claiming that offences have been committed by Laxmi Gupta and Mr. Raj Pal Chaudhary, Advocate in relation to the aforesaid proceedings in the court and, therefore, it was prayed that enquiry as provided under section 340 Cr.P.C. be conducted and the aforesaid two persons be prosecuted for committing perjury in the court by filing the aforesaid petition after her re-marriage with one Ajay Kumar Sharma. The fact in this regard about marriage of Laxmi Gupta with Ajay Kumar Sharma was sought to be proved by a photostat copy of a certificate as well as conflicting statements of Laxmi Gupta on 29.05.2004 in the said court itself.
4. Taking reply to the application and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Rewari found is not expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence referred to in clause (b) of subsection( 1) of section 195 Cr.P.C. alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in that court and dismissed the same, vide order dated 16.09.2008.
5. I have heard Mr. Ranjit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and have gone through the record.
6. Respondent no.1 could not be served by ordinary process and was served by publication. She did not appear despite that and so the case is heard ex-parte against her.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after grant of divorce on 10.05.1999, respondent Laxmi Gupta re-married and thereafter she filed affidavit in the court in denial of the fact of her re-marriage and consequently the appellant had filed application under section 340 Cr.P.C. He drew my attention towards two statements of Laxmi Gupta recorded on 29.04.2004 by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari. The first statement is as under:-
“Stated that I do not want to prosecute my application under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. I have not contracted second marriage after obtaining divorce from Sanjay Gupta.”
8. The second statement is also reproduced as under:-
“Stated that I admit my re-marriage with Ajay Kumar Sharma. I do not want to prosecute my application. I withdraw it. It be dismissed.”
9. According to him, vide the second statement made on 29.05.2004, Laxmi Gupta has admitted her second marriage with Ajay Kumar Sharma. Learned counsel for the appellant then referred the court to plaint of civil suit titled as Laxmi Gupta v. Naresh Kumar Garg of the year 2000, Annexure A-1, where she has claimed that Naresh Kumar Gupta is claiming himself to be her husband while he is not her husband and permanent injunction was sought for restraining him from forcibly claiming the plaintiff Laxmi Gupta to be his wife. According to him, Naresh Kumar Garg filed written statement (Annexure A-
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
