JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Crl. Misc. No.10611 of 2009 In view of the explanation given in the application, delay of 105 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Miscellaneous application is disposed of accordingly. Crl. Appeal No. 530-SB of 2009 1. Sanjay Gupta, the appellant has brought this appeal challenging the decision of learned Additional District Judge, Rewari dated 16.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) vide which application filed by the appellant under section 340 Cr.P.C. for initiating prosecution against Smt. Laxmi Gupta and her counsel Mr. Raj Pal Chaudhary, Advocate has been dismissed. 2. Sanjay Gupta, the appellant was married with Smt. Laxmi Gupta in the year 1995. On account of some matrimonial problems, Sanjay Gupta, the appellant filed a petition for a decree of divorce which was decreed ex-parte against Laxmi Gupta on 10.05.1999. Thereafter, Laxmi Gupta filed petitions under sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. By making statements on 29.05.2004 Laxmi Gupta got the petition dismissed as withdrawn. 3. Application under section 340 Cr.P.C. was then made by the appellant claiming that offences have been committed by Laxmi Gupta and Mr. Raj Pal Chaudhary, Advocate in relation to the aforesaid proceedings in the court and, therefore, it was prayed that enquiry as provided under section 340 Cr.P.C. be conducted and the aforesaid two persons be prosecuted for committing perjury in the court by filing the aforesaid petition after her re-marriage with one Ajay Kumar Sharma. The fact in this regard about marriage of Laxmi Gupta with Ajay Kumar Sharma was sought to be proved by a photostat copy of a certificate as well as conflicting statements of Laxmi Gupta on 29.05.2004 in the said court itself. 4. Taking reply to the application and hearing learned counsel for the parties, learned Additional District Judge, Rewari found is not expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made into the offence referred to in clause (b) of subsection( 1) of section 195 Cr.P.C. alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in that court and dismissed the same, vide order dated 16.09.2008. 5. I have heard Mr. Ranjit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and have gone through the record. 6. 5. I have heard Mr. Ranjit Saini, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.P. Sharma, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and have gone through the record. 6. Respondent no.1 could not be served by ordinary process and was served by publication. She did not appear despite that and so the case is heard ex-parte against her. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that after grant of divorce on 10.05.1999, respondent Laxmi Gupta re-married and thereafter she filed affidavit in the court in denial of the fact of her re-marriage and consequently the appellant had filed application under section 340 Cr.P.C. He drew my attention towards two statements of Laxmi Gupta recorded on 29.04.2004 by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari. The first statement is as under:- “Stated that I do not want to prosecute my application under section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act. I have not contracted second marriage after obtaining divorce from Sanjay Gupta.” 8. The second statement is also reproduced as under:- “Stated that I admit my re-marriage with Ajay Kumar Sharma. I do not want to prosecute my application. I withdraw it. It be dismissed.” 9. According to him, vide the second statement made on 29.05.2004, Laxmi Gupta has admitted her second marriage with Ajay Kumar Sharma. Learned counsel for the appellant then referred the court to plaint of civil suit titled as Laxmi Gupta v. Naresh Kumar Garg of the year 2000, Annexure A-1, where she has claimed that Naresh Kumar Gupta is claiming himself to be her husband while he is not her husband and permanent injunction was sought for restraining him from forcibly claiming the plaintiff Laxmi Gupta to be his wife. According to him, Naresh Kumar Garg filed written statement (Annexure A-2) where he claimed himself to be the husband of Laxmi Gupta. Annexure A-3 (colly) a document having copies of the statements of Naresh Kumar Garg and Laxmi Gupta recorded before Civil Judge, Delhi where Naresh Kumar Garg reiterated that he was the husband of Laxmi Gupta while Laxmi Gupta persisted in her statement that engagement ceremony had taken place but marriage was not solemnized between her and Naresh Kumar Garg. According to him, the main documents are Annexures A-4 and A-5 where Ajay Kumar Sharma and Laxmi Gupta made applications to Minister of Arya Samaj, Moti Chowk, Rewari for solemnizing a marriage between the two. According to him, the main documents are Annexures A-4 and A-5 where Ajay Kumar Sharma and Laxmi Gupta made applications to Minister of Arya Samaj, Moti Chowk, Rewari for solemnizing a marriage between the two. Annexure A-6 is claimed to be an affidavit where Laxmi Gupta states about her marriage with Ajay Kumar Sharma. Annexure A-7 is the certificate of marriage. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that after marriage, she even gave the girl child of the parties in adoption. According to him, Raj Rani, mother of Laxmi Gupta filed a civil suit against Laxmi Gupta in which Laxmi Gupta filed reply Annexure A-10 where Raj Rani had disclosed Laxmi Gupta as wife of Ajay Kumar. He has further submitted that Mr. Raj Pal Chaudhary, Advocate has been signing every documents with Laxmi Gupta and he was aware of everything. According to him, learned Additional District Judge, Rewari has noticed the facts and then noticed the decisions cited by both sides and after discussing those decisions, has reached the conclusion that there was no sufficient material on record to invoke the provisions of section 340 Cr.P.C. for proceeding against the non-applicants for any offence mentioned under section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. 11. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 has submitted, on the other hand, that the very fact that Laxmi Gupta made two statements on 29.05.2004 would show that she was under pressure of the appellant to make a statement as desired by him. According to him, for withdrawal of the petition simple statement of withdrawing the same was enough and the fact that she made second statement where she has admitted that she has remarried with Ajay Kumar Sharma would clearly show that she was under pressure of Sanjay Gupta for making the same. According to him, the only document with the appellant was a photostat copy of a marriage certificate and looking to the said document as well as the provisions of section 340 Cr.P.C. as expounded in the decisions cited before him, learned Additional District Judge, Rewari has rightly found it not expedient to conduct an enquiry or make a complaint against Laxmi Gupta. He has further submitted that Naresh Kumar Garg has been a friend of Sanjay Gupta and he had started claiming himself to be the husband of Laxmi Gupta without any reason and on account of the same civil suit was filed by Laxmi Gupta against him. He has further submitted that the appellant has been revengeful against Laxmi Gupta against whom he had obtained an ex-parte decree of divorce and the circumstances of the case were not such in which the court should have proceeded against Laxmi Gupta under section 340 Cr.P.C. 12. The only circumstance with the appellant to invoke the provisions of section 340 Cr.P.C. had been a photocopy of the marriage certificate of Laxmi Gupta with Ajay Kumar Sharma and the two statements made by Laxmi Gupta on 29.05.2004 while withdrawing her petition. The decree of divorce obtained by the appellant against Laxmi Gupta has been an ex-parte decree. The description of the petition withdrawn on 29.05.2004 is not clear on the record. The facts which according to the appellant amount to perjury are also not made clear on the record. The only fact that becomes evident is that in spite of having been married,the respondent Laxmi Gupta filed petition under sections 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 and section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. The appellant has not placed on record a copy of that petition to prove that the same had been filed after Laxmi Gupta had re-married with Ajay Kumar Sharma and that the averments she made in the petition were false. 13. Learned Additional District Judge, Rewari has grasped the ratio of the decisions cited by both the sides and has rightly distinguished the decisions cited of learned counsel for the appellant. The decisions cited on the side of the respondent have been found to be laying down the law on the point. It is laid down in those decisions that every falsehood that is sworn to by the parties in courts would not have to be proceeded against. It is made clear that if it is so done, the courts would have little time for serious work . It is laid down in those decisions that every falsehood that is sworn to by the parties in courts would not have to be proceeded against. It is made clear that if it is so done, the courts would have little time for serious work . It is also the law laid down in those decisions that every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent on the court to order prosecution and it has been clearly laid down that court has to order 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. 14. What appears in the present case is that Sanjay Gupta wants to gratify his feelings of vindictiveness against Laxmi Gupta, who has withdrawn her petitions without even her statement being recorded in the said case. In these circumstances, learned Additional District Judge, Rewari was not at fault in declining to initiate prosecution against Laxmi Gupta and Mr. Raj Pal Chaudhary, Advocate. Therefore, I find no fault with the impugned order and consequently dismiss the appeal. ---------0.B.S.0------------