M. S. A. Siddiqui,j. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 341, Cr. P. C. is directed against the order dated 11. 4. 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, Delhi under Section 340, Cr. P. C. directing prosecution of the appellant for the offence undersection 193, IPC. ( 2 ) BRIEFLY stated, facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 24. 10. 1986 the appellant filed a false affidavit in the case RCS No. 158/1990 (M/s. A-One India industries v. D. P. Garg and Co.) pending on the file of the Additional District Judge, Delhi stating therein that by the order dated 22. 10. 1986 passed by this Court in RFA No. 199/1986, operation of the order dated 29. 9. 1986 passed by the Additional District Judge had been stayed. On 25. 10. 1986, on inspection of the record of case RFA No. 199/1986 by the respondent O. P. Garg, it was discovered that no such stay order as mentioned in the said affidavit was granted by this Court. Respondent, therefore, filed an application under Section 340, Cr. P. C. before the Additional District Judge for initiating appropriate proceedings against the appellant. By the impugned order, the Additional District Judge directed prosecution of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 193, IPC. Hence this appeal. ( 3 ) IT is an admitted position that on 24. 10. 1986, the appellant had filed his affidavit before the Additional District Judge, Delhi containing the following statement. "that the Hon ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to stay the operation of order dated 29. 9. 1986 passed by the Hon ble Court in R. F. A. No. 199/1986 dated 22. 10. 1986. The said order has been passed by Hon ble Mr. Justice C. L. Choudhary. The said case in the High Court in now fixed for 12. 11. 1986. " ( 4 ) IT is also undisputed that no such stay order as mentioned in the said affidavit wasgrantedbyth. iscourtinrfano. l99/1986. Thus it becomcs clear that on 24. 10. 1986, the appellant had filed a false affidavit in a judicial proceeding pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the said affidavit was filed under a bona fide mistake. iscourtinrfano. l99/1986. Thus it becomcs clear that on 24. 10. 1986, the appellant had filed a false affidavit in a judicial proceeding pending before the Additional District Judge, Delhi. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the said affidavit was filed under a bona fide mistake. It needs to be highlighted that filing a false affidavit or giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding is a serious matter. In this connection I may usefully excerpt the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Dhananjay Sharma v. State of Haryana and Ors. , JT 1995 (4) SC 483=ll (1995) CCR 128 (SC): ". . . . . . . . . . . . . Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Court aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no Court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institution because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone reporting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a Court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the Court and interfere with due course of judicial proceed ings or the administration of justice. " ( 5 ) WHETHER action in such matters should be taken under Section l95,cr. P. C. is a matter primarily for the Court which hears the application, and its discretion is not to be lightly interfered with an appeal. In the instant case, the material on record clearly makes out a case under Section 193, Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The order dated 18. 11. 1996 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate shows that a charge under Section 193, Indian Penal Code has already been framed against the appellant. At this stage the Court cannot examine the defence of the appell ant and record a find ing thereon. In my opinion, the impugned order of the learned Additional District Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.