JUDGMENT A.L.Vaidya, J.: The present petition has been preferred under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for filing a complaint under Section 195 to 200 IPC against the respondents for filing wrong affidavits and for fabricating signatures and thumb impressions by the respondents. It has also been prayed that an appropriate action may be taken against the present respondents as is contemplated under the law. 2. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that one Pritam Dass, elder brother of the petitioner, had filed a contempt petition (C) which was registered as Contempt Petition (C) No.24 of 1991 in this Court under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the said petition notices were issued to all the present respondents and as a consequence thereof the respondents filed their affidavits in response to the notices. The court decided the contempt petition on 31-12-1992 and observed that in view of the circumstances aforesaid, no finding as to the commission of contempt by the respondents can be given and the notice issued to the respondents were, therefore, discharged and the case was dropped. 3. It has been pleaded in the present petition that while filing reply affidavit (s) in the contempt petition by the respondents, the said affidavits were alleged to have been preferred with an intention to forge the signatures and thumb impression on behalf of the respondents and it was so done to take the benefit while putting forged signatures and thumb impressions with mentioning wrong date of birth with the sole purpose that the contempt petition preferred by Pritam Dass be dismissed in any manner. The petitioner has given, in detail, the affidavits alleged to have been forged on behalf of the respondents by putting their signatures or thumb impressions and it has been pleaded that actually the respondents were not present in Shim la when the alleged affidavits were sworn in. However, it has also been pleaded that Shri Prakash Chand, respondent No. 1, had signed his affidavit genuinely but he had wrongly identified the signatures and thumb impressions on the other affidavits filed by the respondents. Paras 3(1) to 3(xii) give the details of the alleged personification committed by affixing the signatures/thumb impressions for the respondents. 4. This petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents and the averments made in the petition have not been admitted. Paras 3(1) to 3(xii) give the details of the alleged personification committed by affixing the signatures/thumb impressions for the respondents. 4. This petition has been contested on behalf of the respondents and the averments made in the petition have not been admitted. 5. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the entire record has been scrutinised by this Court. 6. Whether, suo motu, or on an application by a party under Section 340(1), Cr .P.C. a court having been already seized of a matter may be tentatively of opinion that further action against some party or witness may be necessary in the interest of justice. In a proceeding under Section 340(1) Cr. P.C. the reasons recorded in the principal case, in which a false statement has been made have a great bearing and indeed action is taken having regard to the overall opinion formed by the court in the earlier proceedings. Section 340(1) Cr. P.C, for the sake of convenience, is being reproduced hereunder: "340. Procedure in cases mentioned in Sec. 195- (1) 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 sub-Section (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 it 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 (c) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate." 7. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of law the court can come into action only in case the offences referred under Section 195, sub Section l(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appeared to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in that court. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provision of law the court can come into action only in case the offences referred under Section 195, sub Section l(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, appeared to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in that court. The words appeared to have been committed in, or in relation to any proceeding in that Court, have some significance behind it. It is not that at the sweet Will of a party the court has always to take action, as prayed for by the party. At this stage the only question is whether prima facie case is made out, which, if unrebutted may have a reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offence and whether it is also expedient in the interests of justice to take such action Unless and until a particular case qualifies the aforesaid requisites, the court is not bound, under law, to consider the prayer of a party favourably. 8. In the present case the sole and main point stressed before this court has been that the signatures/thumb impressions of respondents no.2 to 11 arc not of these persons but have been forged by some other persons personifying himself to be .respondents No.2 to 11. In this behalf, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Section 205 IPC is clearly attracted and the court in such circumstances is to pass an appropriate order under Section- 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In order to appreciate the arguments being submitted on behalf of the petitioner first of all the relevant order passed by this Court in the contempt proceedings can safely be referred at this stage. The order is annexed as Annexure -A in the present proceedings. The relevant portion of the order essential for determination of the present proceedings is reproduced herein below: "....In view of this specific assertion on affidavit by the State it is quite clear that the passage had come into existence before this Court passed the order. On the other hand, the parties have filed affidavits giving their own versions to the case. It is difficult to find out the truth from out of these statements. In such a situation, the only safe course is to look to the reply filed by the State in the main case wherein the clear picture has been stated. On the other hand, the parties have filed affidavits giving their own versions to the case. It is difficult to find out the truth from out of these statements. In such a situation, the only safe course is to look to the reply filed by the State in the main case wherein the clear picture has been stated. In view of the circumstances aforesaid, no finding as to the commission of contempt by the respondents can be given. The notices issued to the respondents are, therefore, discharged and the case is dropped. In case the petitioner feels aggrieved by any kind of high handedness on the part of the respondent qua his right in the writ petition, he is at liberty to move appropriate application or take appropriate proceedings, if he so chooses." Section 205 IPC runs as under: "205.False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in suit or prosecution - Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or docs any other act in any suit o*r criminal prosecution, shall be punished with imprisonment or cither description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." The essential ingredients of the offence referred under Section 205 IPC arc as under: (i) That the accused falsely personated the person in question; (ii) That he made such admission; (iii)That he made such admission, etc., in such assumed character; (iv)That such admission, etc. was made in a suit or a criminal prosecution 9. In so far as the present proceedings arc concerned, nothing has been I brought to the notice of this Court that the affidavits filed by the respondents were false statements made by them or that by doing so they had febricated false evidence. The only instances referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this court have been that the affidavits sworn in by respondent No.2 to 11 were not actually having their signatures/thumb impressions but those have been put by some other persons personating in their place. These instances even if assumed to be correct for the sake of arguments, they will not, on any stretch of imagination, bring the case within the ambit of Section 205 IPC. These instances even if assumed to be correct for the sake of arguments, they will not, on any stretch of imagination, bring the case within the ambit of Section 205 IPC. Otherwise also, without there being any circumstance brought on record except the bare plea of the petitioner that these signatures do not tally with the signatures/thumb impressions of respondents No.2 to 11, will not bring the offence to be under Section 205 IPC, though it may attract other provisions of law if the aforesaid allegations are proved to be correct. It may amount to the commission of offence of cheating by personation or some other offence but definitely these pleas in the circumstances of the present case do not come within the ambit of Section 340(1) Cr. P.C. 10. This Court while appreciating the affidavits in the contempt proceedings very specifically observed mat it was difficult to find out the truth from out of these statements. This only reflected that the court could not come to any conclusion whether the affidavits sworn by the parties were correct or incorrect as it was very difficult for the court to find the truth from these documents. That means the court while appreciating the evidenciary value of these affidavits especially those sworn in by the respondents, has not given any finding that the depositions made by them were false. The court has not even observed that these affidavits were the result of personification and this aspect was not brought to the notice of the court at that particular time. It is apparent from the order of the court that the affidavits sworn in by the parties especially by the respondents were not taken note of by the court while passing the order on 31-12-1992, referred to above. This order has been passed on the sole version given on behalf of the State. So on the basis of the order passed by the court it cannot be said prima facie that the alleged affidavits sworn in by the respondents were false or amounted to fabricate the false evidence or have been personated so as to bring them within the ambit of Section 205 IPC. In this view be the matter the order of the court would be very much relevant to appreciate the case of the petitioner. 11. In this view be the matter the order of the court would be very much relevant to appreciate the case of the petitioner. 11. It appears that one of the parties is out to continue with some litigation by following one method or the other and it also appears that the present proceedings have been launched to have that design in mind. In this behalf Dr. Buddhi Kota Subbarao v. Mr. K. Parsaran & Ors., (JT1996 (7) S.C.265) can safely be referred. Though factually this judgment is at variance so far as the present case is concerned, but certain observations made in this judgment would be very much relevant in the background of the present case, which are reproduced hereunder: "...Finality must attach to some stage of judicial proceedings. The course adopted by the applicant is impermissible and his application is based on misconception of law and facts. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner as he wishes. Easy access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived or frivolous petitions..." 12. The aforesaid reported case, though factually different, was also under Section 340 Cr.P.C. wherein the aforesaid observations were made. 13. The Contempt proceedings against the present respondents have been dropped and the present petitioner is out to create some other proceedings from the proceedings which have already been dropped. Any way, it is the right of the petitioner but it has to be exercised in a legal manner. 14. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances the prayer of the petitioner does not deserve to be favourably considered. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to take some advantage from some decided case laws which have been cited by him. These are: Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain & Anr, (AIR 1973 SC 2190); Sardul Singh v. State of Haryana (1992 Cri.L.J.354); and Govardhan A. Vazirani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (1992 (III) Crimes 545. The ratio of these rulings will not be applicable to the present case as the facts of the present case are at variance to the facts involved.in those cases, referred to above. 16. No other point has been stressed. 17. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. The ratio of these rulings will not be applicable to the present case as the facts of the present case are at variance to the facts involved.in those cases, referred to above. 16. No other point has been stressed. 17. In view of the foregoing reasons, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is otherwise at liberty to take such proceedings, in accordance with law, as may be advised. -