Punjab-Haryana High Court
Madan Mohan Sharma vs Anju Lata Sharma on 16 September, 2013
Author: Sabina
Bench: Sabina
Crl. Revision No. 2451 of 2010 (O&M) -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Revision No. 2451 of 2010 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 16.9.2013.
Madan Mohan Sharma ........Petitioner
Vs.
Anju Lata Sharma .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. A.S.Virk, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K.Singla, Advocate
for the respondent.
.....
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('Cr.P.C.' for short) challenging the orders dated 27.3.2010 and 13.10.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Courts below had erred in dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. In fact, the respondent had furnished false affidavit in this Court in CM No. 15757-CII of 1999 in FAO No. 156-M of 1991. Learned counsel has further submitted that on 1.11.1999 following order was passed by this Court in CM No. 15757-CII of 1999 in FAO No. 156-M of 1991:-
"The prayer in this application filed under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is for permission to prosecute the respondent-wife Anju Lata Sharma on the allegation that she filed a false affidavit in this court.
Dismissed with the observation that if so advised petitioner may file a complaint in an appropriate forum." Singh Gurpreet 2013.09.19 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2451 of 2010 (O&M) -2 -
Hence, the respondent was liable to be proceeded qua criminal offence committed by her.
Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the petition.
In the present case, petitioner was married to the respondent. Divorce petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Trial Court. Thereafter, FAO No. 156-M of 1991 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent had moved an application for interim maintenance. The case of the petitioner was that the respondent had furnished a false affidavit seeking maintenance. Maintenance had already been paid to the respondent for certain period. Hence, she was liable to be punished under Section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
It is evident that vide order dated 1.11.1999, this Court had dismissed the application moved under Section 340 Cr.P.C. for permission to prosecute the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate relying on the observation by this Court that he could file a complaint before an appropriate forum, if so advised. The Trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner on the ground that the proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the respondent were liable to be dropped as document had been prepared outside the Court. The Court of Revision also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Trial Court dated 13.10.2005 by holding that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. could not be initiated against the respondent as the said Singh Gurpreet 2013.09.19 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 2451 of 2010 (O&M) -3 - permission had not been granted by this Court. The Courts below had rightly dismissed the application moved by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C. as the said permission had not been granted by this Court.
No ground for interference by this Court is made out. Dismissed.
(SABINA) JUDGE September 16, 2013 Gurpreet Singh Gurpreet 2013.09.19 12:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh