JUDGMENT : The order impugned No.15 dated 12th February, 2014 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Second Court, North 24-Parganas, Barasat, in Misc. Appeal No.72 of 2013 affirming an order dated 15th December, 2012 of plaintiff/petitioner’s application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Sealdah, in Misc. Appeal No.02 of 2008 in Title Suit No.206 of 2000 is under challenge in this revisional application. 2. The original petitioner, Smt. Rama Bose, since deceased, was substituted by Sri Ramendra Nath Bose, husband and Mohua Bose, daughter of the deceased are the present applicants. Smt. Rama Bose, since deceased substituted petitioner on his own behalf and also authorized by Mohua Bose, daughter of Smt. Rama Bose argued the matter. 3. For the defendants/opposite parties, Md. Minhajuddin and Ms. Aditi Chatterjee appeared in this matter. 4. Mr. Bose, appearing in support of this revisional application submits that both learned Courts i.e., learned Trial Court as well as learned Appellate Court erroneously rejected the application filed by the plaintiff/petitioner under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Mr. Bose, submitted that both learned Courts should have directed the defendants/opposite parties to submit the original Deeds of transfer of the disputed property. He submitted that learned appellate Court have jurisdiction to decide the issue and ought to have allowed the application under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to him, defendants/opposite parties have given false evidence and made false statements in their affidavit before the learned trial Court in Title Suit No.2006 of 2000. Mr. Bose submitted that learned Court below ought to have appreciated that the defendants/opposite parties claiming their ownership over the property but they are not providing the deed of transfer in original showing sale of the property in question and both the learned Courts ought to have inquired into and deal with the matter strictly in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Bose submitted that learned Court below ought to have appreciated that the defendants/opposite parties claiming their ownership over the property but they are not providing the deed of transfer in original showing sale of the property in question and both the learned Courts ought to have inquired into and deal with the matter strictly in accordance with law. 5. Mr. Bose submitted that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code and also failed to consider the facts and circumstances of this case, specially, the false statement made by the defendants/opposite parties on oath and as such, learned Court below come to a wrong conclusion thereby rejecting the application filed by the plaintiff/ petitioner. 6. Mr. Bose, submitted that the order dated 15th December, 2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Sealdah, in Misc. Case No.02 of 2008 is erroneous in law and not at all sustainable. 7. Mr. Bose, submitted that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with impugned order of learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), 3rd Court, Sealdah, plaintiff/petitioner preferred an appeal which numbered as Misc. Appeal 72 of 2013 which was also erroneously rejected by the Additional District Judge, 2nd Court, Barasat. 8. Mr. Bose, contended that learned trial Court was wrong by holding that there was cogent evidence to substantiate the case of the plaintiff/petitioner. He submitted that in absence of any document being produced by any of the defendants/opposite parties, it is necessary to direct them to submit original registered title Deeds in respect of the disputed property/flats and garage space. 9. Mr. Bose submitted that conduct of the defendants/opposite parties shows that they have made false claim before the Court and thus, mislead the Court to believe that defendants/opposite parties are owners of the flats and garage in question. According to Mr. Bose, defendants/opposite parties dishonestly made false claim knowing the claim is false. Mr. Bose submitted that initially Misc. Case No.02 of 2008 was rejected by the learned trial Court. Thereafter an appeal was preferred against the order impugned and in the Misc. Appeal No.27 of 2010 the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Barasat was pleased to direct the learned trial Court to hear the matter afresh. Mr. Bose submitted that initially Misc. Case No.02 of 2008 was rejected by the learned trial Court. Thereafter an appeal was preferred against the order impugned and in the Misc. Appeal No.27 of 2010 the learned Additional District Judge, 5th Fast Track Court, Barasat was pleased to direct the learned trial Court to hear the matter afresh. Thereafter, matter was taken up for hearing on 15th December 2012 and after hearing the parties, learned trial Court rejected the application of the plaintiff/petitioner. 10. Mr. Bose, submitted that learned appellate Court also failed to appreciate the scope and ambit of Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code. He submitted that defendants/opposite party No.3 in her written statement stated that two car parking space was transferred to Naresh Bazaz/defendant No.1 and Smt. Saroj Bazaz/defendant No.2. The said defendants No.1 & 2 in their written objection against the plaintiff’s application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 of Civil Procedure Code stated that said defendants are the legal owners of flats No.4C and 4D.The defendants further claimed that garage space No.3 & 7 in the premises No.P-71, Block No.B, Lake Town belonged to the defendants. According to plaintiff/petitioner, defendant No.3 in her written objection stated that garage space No.7 was already sold out to defendant No.1 & 2 but no copy of documents showing such sale was produced before the learned Court. However, Smt. Rama Bose, the original plaintiff/petitioner since deceased claimed to be the owner of flat No.3D and also the garage space No.8 in the said premises. According to plaintiff/petitioner, the three defendants failed to submit copy of any document to substantiate their claim and that is why the application was moved by the plaintiff/petitioner with a prayer for initiating a proceeding under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 11. Mr. Bose, submitted that both the orders are illegal, not sustainable in law and as such the same should be set aside. He also submitted direction be given for initiation of proceeding under Section 340 read with 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/opposite parties submitted that defendant No.3 stated that two car parking space were transferred to Naresh Bazaz and Smt. Saroj Bazaz for parking one large car and one small car. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the defendants/opposite parties submitted that defendant No.3 stated that two car parking space were transferred to Naresh Bazaz and Smt. Saroj Bazaz for parking one large car and one small car. He submitted that defendant No.1 & 2 purchased flat No.4C & 4D on 4th floor along with roof rights, roof attic and toilet on 3rd floor where the same are allowed to be common to all flat owners in the said premises. Although petitioner/plaintiff alleged that defendant No.1 & 2 are parking big car in the small car parking space creating hindrance to the plaintiff/petitioner but such allegation is not correct. He submitted that defendant No. 1 & 2 categorically stated that both flats 4C & 4D are owned by the defendant No.1 alone, bought as per legal agreement and legal possession with all other rights, easements, amenities both inside and outside of the building including car parking space No.3 & 7. He submitted that defendants/opposite parties have also denied that user and occupancy of car parking space No.7 in any way made any encroachment over car parking space No.8. They stated that car-parking space is situated in the ground floor of the building. It was surrounded by three sides with iron grill fixed with pillars and the road side is totally open to get access to the car parking space. 13. Learned counsel submitted that the defendant No.3 in his statement clearly stated that flat No.4C and 4D on the 4th Floor has been sold to defendant No.1 & 3 and sketch map have also shown in the drawing which was also transferred to Naresh Bazaz and Smt. Saroj Bazaz for parking for one large car and small car. It was denied that there is any encroachment by any means by parking big car and small car or they are creating any hindrance to the plaintiff/petitioner. 14. Learned counsel submitted that plaintiff have obtained an order of injunction restraining the defendant/opposite parties No.1 & 2 from creating any disturbance by way of encroachment and/or any other way over car parking space No.8 in the suit premises till disposal of the suit. He submitted that by way of an agreement they have entered into the flat and got possession of two flats and also paid consideration money, the documents are yet to be executed. 15. He submitted that by way of an agreement they have entered into the flat and got possession of two flats and also paid consideration money, the documents are yet to be executed. 15. Learned counsel submitted that the opposite parties are admittedly owners of the two flats and two car parking space as stated by the defendant No.3 on oath. Learned counsel submitted that opposite parties never made any false claim and false statement before the court of law. Therefore, the application made by the plaintiff/petitioner ought to have rejected and in fact, rightly rejected by both learned Courts below. 16. Learned counsel submitted this revisional application has no merit and as such should be dismissed. 17. Considered submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It appears from the pleadings as well as materials on records that the reason for filing the application under Section 340 read with Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is failure on the part of three defendants to submit copy of any document to substantiate their claim on oath, on affidavit they have made, that whether the owners of the property in question i.e., two flats, two garage space, one for large car and the other for small car. Now, let me consider the scope of Section 340 as well as Section 195 of Cr.P.C. the two provisions are quoted hereunder for better appreciation of its scope meaning and purport:- 195. Now, let me consider the scope of Section 340 as well as Section 195 of Cr.P.C. the two provisions are quoted hereunder for better appreciation of its scope meaning and purport:- 195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.- (1) No Court shall take cognizance- (a) (i) of any offence punishable under ss 172 to 188 (both inclusive ) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or (ii) of any abetment of, or attempt to commit, such offence, or (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence, except on the complaint in writing of the public servant concerned or of some other public servant to whom he is administratively subordinate; (b) (i) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), namely, ss 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or (ii) of any offence described in s 463, or punishable under s 471, s 475 or s 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or, (iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub-cl (i) or sub-cl (ii), except on the complaint in writing of that Court, or of some other Court to which that Court is subordinate. (2) Where a complaint has been made by a public servant under clause (a) of sub-s (1) any authority to which he is administratively subordinate may order the withdrawal of the complaint and send a copy of such order to the Court and upon its receipt by the Court, no further proceedings shall be taken on the complaint: Provided that no such withdrawal shall be ordered if the trial in the Court of first instance has been concluded. (3) In clause (b) of sub-s (1), the term “Court” means, a Civil Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (3) In clause (b) of sub-s (1), the term “Court” means, a Civil Revenue or Criminal Court, and includes a tribunal constituted by or under a Central, Provincial or State Act if declared by that Act to be a Court for the purposes of this section. (4) For the purposes of clause (b) of sub-s (1), a Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Court to which appeals ordinarily lie from the appealable decrees or sentences of such former Court, or in the case of a Civil Court from whose decrees no appeal ordinarily lies to the principal Court having ordinary original civil jurisdiction within whose local jurisdiction such Civil Court is situate: Provided that – (a) where appeals lie to more than one Court, the Appellate Court of inferior jurisdiction shall be the Court to which such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate; (b) where appeals lie to a Civil and also to a Revenue Court, such Court shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Civil or Revenue Court according to the nature of the case or proceeding in connection with which the offence is alleged to have been committed. 340. Procedure in cases mentioned in s 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-s (1) of s 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 (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-s (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-s (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-s (4) of s 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,- (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint ; (b) In any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court. (4) In this section, “court” has the same meaning as in s. 195. 18. Now let me consider the scope of provisions 195 Cr.P.C. Under Section 195 Cr.P.C. if any offence referred to have been committed in or in relation to any proceeding in a court as defined in sub section 3 of section 195, the concerned Court may proceed, if it is of opinion that in the interests of justice the offence should be enquired into, then the concerned Court make a complaint in writing to a Magistrate in regard to alleged offence. However, the Court is obliged to take a proper action in an appropriate case whenever the matter comes to his notice. It is not mandatory of the section that in each and every case an enquiry should be initiated. It is only in glaring cases of deliberate falsehood where there is likelihood of conviction the Court should proceed in the matter. However, the Court is obliged to exercise its discretion in the light of all relevant material facts and circumstances to determine the question of expediency and order prosecution in the larger interest of administration of justice and not to glorify feeling of personal revenge or vindictiveness or to serve the ends of a private party. 19. In the instant case, defendants/opposite parties entered appearance and filed their written objection. The plaintiffs/petitioner moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. and the learned Court below allowed the prayer and the learned advocate commissioner appointed by Court is carrying out investigation. 19. In the instant case, defendants/opposite parties entered appearance and filed their written objection. The plaintiffs/petitioner moved an application under Order 26 Rule 9 of the C.P.C. and the learned Court below allowed the prayer and the learned advocate commissioner appointed by Court is carrying out investigation. Therefore, at this stage it would be very difficult to come to a conclusion whether the defendants/opposite parties would be able to establish their claim of ownership over the suit properties in question i.e., flats and garage space. Both learned Courts below have concluded that no cogent evidence upto this stage of appeal was produced by the plaintiff/petitioner for which the learned trial Court should have passed an order under the aforementioned two provisions. The learned trial Court also clearly held that no cogent evidence was produced by the plaintiff/petitioner for which the learned trial Court did not find any merit in the application under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 20. It is settled position of law that primarily the Court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter, substance of which is based on a unreasonable foundation and it is in the interest of justice request the Court to file a complaint. The learned appellate Court also have made it clear for invoking the provisions unless it is necessary in the interest of justice, which is an essential condition, the Court should not initiate any proceeding nor proceed in that regard. Therefore, keeping in mind the settled principle of law with regard to initiate a proceeding under Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. this Court is of the view that in the facts and circumstances of this case neither it is necessary nor it is expedient to initiate a proceeding as prayed for by the plaintiff/petitioner. Further the suit is yet to begin and it is still premature to give final opinion as to genuineness of the documents intended to be produced by the defendants/opposite parties. Learned trial Judge in exercise of his judicial discretion is of clear opinion that it was not expedient in the interest of justice to allow the prayer under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., at this stage, that is why the learned appellate Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order and as such rejected the Misc. appeal. 21. Learned trial Judge in exercise of his judicial discretion is of clear opinion that it was not expedient in the interest of justice to allow the prayer under Section 340 of Cr.P.C., at this stage, that is why the learned appellate Court did not find any reason to interfere with the order and as such rejected the Misc. appeal. 21. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality and/or material irregularity in the order passed by both learned Courts below and there is no merit in this revisional application. 22. This revisional application is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.