JUDGMENT 1. This is an application for sanction for prosecution. It is the contention of the applicant that the respondent herein made false averments in the affidavit affirmed by him on 26th June, 1992. 2. Late Dr. Satish Chandra Sharma died leaving him surviving his widow, two daughters and one son. One of the daughters of Late Dr. Sharma was residing with her husband and children at the house of Late Dr. Sharma until about January 1992. The other daughter was residing at Vishakapattnam. It appears that the son of Late Dr. Sharma was brought up by Late Barindra Kumar Das as his own son. After the death of Late Dr. Sharma the son applied for grant of probate of a Will said to have been made and published by Late Dr. Sharma. In that proceedings the son, the respondent herein, applied for appointing himself as the administrator pendente lite which was contested by the daughter who along with her husband and children resided with Late Dr. Sharma at his house till January 1992, the present applicant. On such contest the said application of the son for appointing himself as administrator pendente lite was dismissed by an Order dated 1st July, 1992. 3. The present application has been made against the son on the ground that be made false averments in the affidavit-in-reply. 4. The case of the applicant may be summarised as follows :- (I) The respondent has made false averments by denying that be uses a different surname than that of Late Dr. Sharma ; (II) The respondent has made false averments by denying that the applicant resided with her father along with her husband and children until January 1992 ; (III) The respondent has made false averments by stating that he never married twice; (IV) The respondent has made false averments by denying surrender of tenancy and realisation of huge sums of money on that account: and (V) The respondent falsely represented that the daughter of Late Dr. Sharma who is residing at Vishakapattnam is not residing thereat but at some other place by giving a false address in the cause title. 5. It has been stated that the motive of making the aforesaid false allegations was to show close proximity between Late Dr. Sharma and the respondent, to show that Late Dr. Sharma who is residing at Vishakapattnam is not residing thereat but at some other place by giving a false address in the cause title. 5. It has been stated that the motive of making the aforesaid false allegations was to show close proximity between Late Dr. Sharma and the respondent, to show that Late Dr. Sharma had no connection with his daughters, to show that the respondent is a responsible person capable of discharging the duties of administrator pendente lite, to dispel the serious allegations made against the character behaviour and activities of the respondent and to suppress the citation to be issued to the other daughter of Late Dr. Sharma. 6. To prove the falsity of such averments the applicant relied on the certificate issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in favour of the respondent, his membership certificate issued by the said Institute, his Identity Card issued by St. Xavier's College, his Life Insurance Policy, his marriage certificate, interest warrants issued in favour of the applicant, Tax Deduction Certificate issued in favour of the applicant, ration cards issued in favour of the applicant and her family members, the agreement of tenancy dated 3rd January, 1992 in respect of the new residence of the applicant, ration cards of the applicant and her family members issued after she shifted to her new residence, AAEI membership card of the husband of the applicant, driving licence of the son of the applicant, saving bank accounts of the applicant and his sons, a marriage certificate of the respondent certified copy of the order dated 26th May, 1992 passed by the Additional District Judge, 6th Court, Alipore in Matrimonial Suit No.9 of 1992, (1) In re: Smt. Sunita Sharma v. Sushil (Das) Sharma & Anr. and certified copy of the order dated 20th May, 1992 passed by the 1st Class Judicial Magistrate, 9th Court, Alipore in Criminal Case No 856 of 1992. In addition thereto the applicant relied on copy of the agreement dated 28th November, 1991 in regard to surrender of tenancy. The respondent also relied on a notice dated 2nd November, 1991 given by the Lawyer of the daughter of Late Dr. Sharma who resides at vishakapattnam. 7. It has been contended by the applicant that the respondent resorted to the aforesaid falsity wilfully, deliberately and intentionally, knowing them to be false and therefore he is liable to be prosecuted. The respondent also relied on a notice dated 2nd November, 1991 given by the Lawyer of the daughter of Late Dr. Sharma who resides at vishakapattnam. 7. It has been contended by the applicant that the respondent resorted to the aforesaid falsity wilfully, deliberately and intentionally, knowing them to be false and therefore he is liable to be prosecuted. The object and intention of making such false averments was to appoint him as an administrator pendente lite. It has been contended that swearing of false affidavit amount to an offence under Sections 191, 192, 193 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code but Section 195 (1)(b) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 provides that no Court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable, inter alia, under Sections 193 to 196 and 199 of the Indian Penal Code except on the complaint in writing of that Code and the Procedure to be followed in respect of Section 195 (1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code has been provided in Section 340 of the said Code which provides that on an application or otherwise if the Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of Justice that an enquiry should be made into any offence referred to in Section 195 (1)(b) of the said Code, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court in respect of the document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may after preliminary enquiry as if thinks necessary record a finding to that effect, make a complaint thereof in writing, send it to the Magistrate of 1st Class, having jurisdiction, take sufficient security for appearance of the accused before the Magistrate, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate if the offence is unbailable and bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. 8. 8. The learned Counsel, appearing in support of the application cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in (2) K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Warren reported in AIR 1978 SC 290 , for the proposition that if a prima facie case is made out, which, if unrebutted may have reasonable likelihood to establish the specified offence, the Court will enquire the matter under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code irrespective of the result of the main case provided it is expedient in the interest of Justice to take such an action. It was submitted that a prima facie case has been made out for laying a complaint, which does not mean that the charge has been established, which will be established at the trial itself. It was submitted that the application of the respondent was dismissed which proves that this Court accepted the contentions as were raised by the applicant. It was submitted that an attempt was made by the respondent to make wrongful gains by taking recourse to falsehood and therefore the application should be allowed. 9. Various other judgments were also cited by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant for the proposition that the existence of mensrea behind the act complained of is required to be looked into and considered, in a proper case proceeding under Section 476 of the Criminal Procedure Code can be regarded as a prosecution by the individual and therefore even if ultimately the respondent is discharged he can initiate proceedings to recover damages for malicious prosecution notwithstanding grant of sanction for prosecution. 10. I think the most important thing in a matter like this is whether the investigation sought for should be made in the interest of justice in the present case the respondent has not obtained any benefit of the alleged false averments said to have been made by him. The respondent, in fact, made certain denials to the assertions made by the applicant. By making such denials the respondent could not impress upon the Court since documentary evidence produced by the applicant established that such denials have of no basis. In every civil dispute, the dispute originates by assertion of one and by denial of the other. When the matter is adjudicated the Court determines as to whether the assertions were correct or whether the denials were right. In every civil dispute, the dispute originates by assertion of one and by denial of the other. When the matter is adjudicated the Court determines as to whether the assertions were correct or whether the denials were right. Therefore, the Court concludes that one of the litigants either made an unfounded assertion or an unfounded denial. I do not think that the person, whose assertion or denial has been found by the Court to be baseless, should be prosecuted simply because his assertion or denials were proved to be baseless. In the present case there is no dispute that the respondent is the son of Late Dr. Sharma though he was brought up by someone else and though the respondent adopted the surname of his foster father but it cannot be said that denial by the respondent of user of surname of his foster father with an object of showing that he is the son of Late Dr. Sharma is such a falsehood that he should be prosecuted therefor on the ground that he intended to make a false impersonation. Similarly the denial that the applicant resided at the house of Late Dr. Sharma upto a certain point of time is also not such a denial which can tantamount to a deliberate and intentional falsehood to gain certain advantage. The fact remains that the applicant was served with a copy of the petition of the respondent which was ultimately dismissed. The applicant got an opportunity to contest the said application and in fact did so and ultimately caused the same to be dismissed. The applicant has contended that the intention to make such incorrect denial was to justify the Will sought to be propounded by the respondent. The Court while dealing with the said application has not come to any such conclusion. It is merely an assertion of the applicant. The respondent denied that he married twice. Whether the respondent married twice or not and whether the second marriage is legally valid or not was no part of the lis which was pending in this Court. The Court while dealing with the said application has not come to any such conclusion. It is merely an assertion of the applicant. The respondent denied that he married twice. Whether the respondent married twice or not and whether the second marriage is legally valid or not was no part of the lis which was pending in this Court. Further, from the decree passed in Matrimonial Suit No.9 of 1992 it appears that the 6th Additional District Judge at Alipore, held that the second marriage of the respondent is without any effect as the same was practised by fraud, If the second marriage was in fact, of no effect then I fail to understand as to how the denial of marrying twice is a false denial. The respondent denied having surrendered the tenancy to a developer against receipt of huge sums of money. The agreement for surrender has been annexed to the affidavit-in-reply to the present application filed by the applicant herself. It appears from that agreement that the same was entered by the applicant and the respondent with the landlord whereunder both of them were to get certain money. Therefore, the assertion on the part of the applicant herself to the effect that the respondent had surrendered the tenancy and obtain huge sums is incorrect, and the fact remains that the applicant and the respondent both surrendered the tenancy and agreed to share the money to he received on account of such surrender. The incorrect address given by the respondent of the daughter of Late Dr. Sharma, who is residing at Vishakapattnam has since been corrected in the body of the application made for grant of probate and therefore there is no possibility of the said daughter of Late Dr, Sharma suffering any manner whatsoever. 11. In those circumstances, I am of the view that interest of justice does not call for taking any further step in the matter as has been sought for by the applicant. The application is therefore dismissed There shall be no order as to costs.