Mangat Singh vs Rakha Singh

V.S. Aggarwal, J.

One Gurmeet Kaur wife of Mangal Singh petitioner on her own behalf and for her three minor children had filed an application under Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of maintenance. The application was tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jalandhar. On 9.10.1990 learned Judicial Magistrate decided the same. During the course of trial, Rakha Singh, respondent No. 1 appeared as PW1 on behalf of Gurmit Kaur. Amarjit Singh respondent appeared as PW4 again as witness for Gurmit Kaur. Application under Section 125, Code of Criminal Procedure was decided. After the decision, petitioner moved the application under Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure to initiate enquiry. It was pleaded that respondents Rakha Singh and Amarjit Singh had given intentionally false evidence with intention to get such false evidence read and used in judicial proceedings. He averred that respondents had deposed falsely and may be dealt with in accordance with law.

According to the petitioner, respondent Rakha Singh denied receipt of money sent by the petitioner, while he received such amount through Bank draft and the same was deposited in the saving fund account of Rakha Singh at New Bank of India, Jalandhar. He also asserted that by denying the ownership of Plot No. 120, Dada Colony, Jalandhar, he stated a fact which was false and thirdly that respondent Rakha Singh had made a false statement that petitioner had promised in the Punjab & Haryana High Court to transfer Rs. 60,000/ in favour of his children. As against Amarjit Singh, it was alleged that he falsely stated in the Court that he had contacts with the petitioner at Dubai in the year 1980.

Learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application and petitioner preferred an appeal with the Court of Sessions at Jalandhar.

Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Jalandhar dismissed the appeal, hence the present revision petition. The case was listed on three occasions, but none appeared for the petitioner. It was felt that it will not be appropriate to again adjourn the case.

Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalandhar while dismissing the appeal concluded as under :

"To me, it appears that what Rakha Singh and Amarjit Singh stated before the Court in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. was what they considered proper and formed opinion regarding those matters. The evidence was open to be controverted by Mangal Singh appellant in his evidence. At the face of these statements of Rakha Singh PW.4 and that of Amarjit Singh P.W.1 are not such as shall attract the provisions of Section 340 Cr.P.C."

On appraisal of the facts, one finds that the said findings arrived at by the learned Additional Sessions Judge do not require to be set aside. Purpose of a complaint after an enquiry contemplated under Section, 340 Code of Criminal Procedure is not to enable a discontented party to satisfy his private grudge. Every statement which is not found to be truthful cannot be subjectmatter of Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure. Only if it is expedient in the interest of justice that complaint is required to be made. It appears that what was stated by the respondents was considered proper by them and they formulated an opinion regarding those matters. Therefore, it was rightly felt that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to entertain a complaint.

I find no reasons to interfere in the present revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.