By this petition the petitioners have challenged the lega­lity of the orders dated 11.4.85 and 17.4.85 passed by the lear­ned Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimganj. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimganj, in Sessions Case No. 28 of 84, by an order dated 20.11.84, acquitted the petitioners on all the charges U/Ss. 324 and 379, IPC. Thereafter, the petitioners on 10.4.85 filed an application in the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge for prosecuting the opposite party Joy Kumar Roy under section 211, IPC for filing a false and ma­licious ejahar and for giving false evidence with an ulterior motive of harming the reputation and status of the petitioners and their family members in the eyes of the public. On 11.4.85, on the petition the learned Judge passed the following order : "The case in question has since been disposed of. This court has nothing to do with this petition. The petitioner may move if he is so advised in proper forum." Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application for a certified copy of the order. On 17.4.85, the learned Judge passed the following order : "The case in question has since been disposed of. Hence no order could be passed in the connected case record. My order in the body of the petition will speak for itself. The petitioner may take back his original petition if he desires." 3. Section 340 (1), Cr. On 17.4.85, the learned Judge passed the following order : "The case in question has since been disposed of. Hence no order could be passed in the connected case record. My order in the body of the petition will speak for itself. The petitioner may take back his original petition if he desires." 3. Section 340 (1), Cr. P.C. runs as follows :- "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 in clause (b) of sub­section (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 proceeding 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 to a Magistrate of the first class having juris­diction; d) take sufficient security for the appearance of 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." 4. Discretion under section 340 may be exercised by the Court suo moto or it ma bye moved by any person to invoke its jurisdiction under section 340. In other words, Court can take action under section 340 suo moto or upon an applica­tion to it by a private party. An application is merely drawing an attention of the Court. It is its duty to take suitable action. The question whether or not the prosecution is expedient in the interest of justice must be determined with reference to facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this respect. Although, a wide discretion given to the Court under section 340, the discretion would be exercised with great care and caution as the object of section 340 and section 195 is to provide a safeguard against frivolous and vaxatious prosecutions. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this respect. Although, a wide discretion given to the Court under section 340, the discretion would be exercised with great care and caution as the object of section 340 and section 195 is to provide a safeguard against frivolous and vaxatious prosecutions. The Supreme Court in Santokh Singh vs. Izhar, AIR 1973 SC 2190 has held: "Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution. The Court has to exercise judicial discretion in the light of all the relevant circumstances when it determines the question of expediency. The court orders 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. Too frequent prosecu­tions for such offences tend to defeat its very object. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where conviction is highly likely that the court should direct prosecution." 5. In the present case, the order of the learned Magistrate dated 11.4.85 shows that he has passed order hurriedly. He has not applied his mind on the facts and circumstances of the case, and has not exercised his jurisdiction vested in him. 6. For the foregoing reasons the order dated 11.4.85 and dated 17.4.85 are set aside and the case is sent back to the Assistant Sessions Judge, Karimganj for his re-consideration whe­ther he should make enquiry or not under section 340, Cr. PC. in the light of the above observations. With the said observa­tions and directions the petition is allowed and disposed of.