Judgment Adarsh Kumar Goel, J. 1. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed against order of the Court of Session directing filing of a complaint under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, the Code) against the petitioner under Sections 193, 209, 419, 466 and 468 IPC. The petitioner had filed a suit for injunction describing himself as "Gogi Singh son of Durga Singh", "resident of Village Doomali". Thereafter, suit was dismissed in default. According to the petitioner, he himself surrendered possession of the property of which there was dispute. The respondents herein, who were parties to the suit, filed applications dated 5.3.1993 and 20.4.1993 under Section 340 of the Code alleging that the petitioner concealed his real name i.e. "Davinderbir Singh Gill", employed as Manager in the Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation, Chandigarh. The petitioner was whole-time employee of the State of Punjab and he was settled in Chandigarh much prior to filing of the suit. 2. The application were contested. The trial Court vide order dated 26.5.1998 dismissed the applications holding that the respondents knew that the petitioner was also called "Gogi Singh" and, thus, the Court was not misled on account of that. The trial Court, however, observed in para 12 of its order as under :- "However, before parting with this order I may bring on record that although proceedings with respect to the instant applications have terminated in favour of respondent, but at any rate, the conduct of the respondent has not been be-fitting of his status, responsibility and the high office held by him in the State owned Corporation and, is not above board. The omission on his part in not disclosing his real name i.e. Davinderbir Singh Gill in the civil suit is consistent without (with ?) only one explanation that it was deliberate. Even if it is accepted that he filed the civil suit with his nick name because the revenue record (Khasra Girdawaries) with respect to suit land were corrected in his favour in his nick name, even then he could have disclosed his real name. Even if it is accepted that he filed the civil suit with his nick name because the revenue record (Khasra Girdawaries) with respect to suit land were corrected in his favour in his nick name, even then he could have disclosed his real name. He appears to have filed the civil suit by concealing his real name either with the intention of gaining some advantage which he could not have otherwise gained or with the intention of helping his relative Varinder Singh s/o Baldev Singh whom, perhaps he could not have otherwise helped. No ignorance is apparently attributable to respondent which may show his innocence. His conduct fall short of the standard expected from a person holding a high public office." 3. The respondents thereafter preferred an appeal under Section 341 of the Code which has been allowed and a direction has been issued for filing of a complaint. The direction of the lower appellate Court is as under :- "So in compliance with Section 340 Cr.PC the learned trial Court i.e. Successor Court of Shri K.S. Dhaliwal is directed to make complaint in writing on the basis of above finding of fact and further directed to submit the same to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda on or before 14.10.2000 and then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda to proceed according to law under Sections 193, 209, 419, 466 and 468 IPC. The appeal is accepted accordingly." 4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, the Advocate General, Punjab, submitted that the lower appellate Court was not justified in directing filing of a complaint. He submitted that parameters for holding whether "it was expedient in the interest of justice", have been laid down by the Apex Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah and another v. Meenakshi Marwah and another, 2005(2) RCR(Crl.) 178 : 2005(1) Apex Criminal 581 (SC) : JT 2005(3) SC 195, Para 18 Santokh Singh v. Izhar Hussain and another, AIR 1973 SC 2190, Para 11 and by this Court in Jaswinder Singh v. Smt. Paramjit Kaur, 1986(1) RCR(Crl.) 97, Para 4 and Mangat Singh v. Rakha Singh, 1995(3) RCR(Crl.) 312, para 6 and the present case does not fall in those parameters. He referred to the following pedigree table :- 5. He referred to the following pedigree table :- 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents being related to the petitioner were aware about his identity and it was not a rare case where the Court could consider it expedient to file a complaint, since the Court was not misled as held by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. He submitted that if true identity of the petitioner was known to the trial Court at the initial stage, ex parte interim order of status quo would not have been granted. He submitted that the petitioner deliberately concealed his identity and occupation. If in the plaint, the correct name and occupation of the petitioner would have been mentioned, the trial Court could easily make out that the petitioner could not be in possession of the suit property as tenant as he was a full-time government employee stationed at Chandigarh. 7. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. The facts are not in dispute. The petitioner did give incorrect description which had the potential of misleading the Court and it is the petitioner himself who best knows as to why he gave misleading description. The defence that he had different nick name, hardly has any merit. When a grown-up person goes to Court and files a suit, he will not file suit in his nick name. Merely because his correct name was capable of being known by the defendant, is not conclusive of innocence of the petitioner. Even if nick name was to be given, the correct name will always be mentioned. The petitioner cannot, thus, be taken to be innocent nor explanation furnished can be held to be convincing. Even so there is hardly any purpose in filing a complaint, as directed by the lower appellate Court, having regard to the fact that the trial Court itself held that the Court was not misled. The law on the point has been succinctly summed up in Santokh Singh (supra) as under :- ".... Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the Court to or 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 law on the point has been succinctly summed up in Santokh Singh (supra) as under :- ".... Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the Court to or 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......." (Para 11). 8. In view of the above, order of the lower appellate Court directing filing of a complaint is set aside. 9. Even though, a direction for filing a complaint has been set aside conduct of the petitioner cannot be ignored. The trial Court while dismissing application for filing of complaint disapproved the conduct of the petitioner. Observations of the trial Court have already been extracted above. The observations appear to be fully justified. 10. In view of the above, though order of filing of complaint is set aside, the registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab, for being forwarded to the concerned head of the department, for such appropriate action, as may be considered to be necessary. 11. The petition is disposed of in above terms.