JUDGMENT : 1. Shri Yashpal Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant. Shri Vinay Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed documents as per the Index which are taken on record. 2. This Court while disposing of MCC No. 287/10, vide order dated 2-5-2014 issued following direction :— “We have gone through the application and schedule of the properties annexed with the application, reply of the application, Collector’s Raipur Report dated 28-3-2014, Report of SDO dated 27-3-2014. We found that in the application under Order XLIV, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code applicant has not mentioned that he is having Bank balance in the State Bank of India, Branch Mungeli in the sum of Rs. 1,22,408/-. He has also not disclosed that he is regularly submitting the income tax returns and he is a businessman. Considering all the facts, we are of the opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that preliminary enquiry should be made and on the basis of outcome of the enquiry, appropriate action be taken against the applicant. Office is directed to register the miscellaneous criminal case against the applicant under section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code and show cause notice be sent to him in that regard. The record of this MCC No.287/10 be kept along with that M.Cr.C.” 3. Instant Miscellaneous Criminal Case being MCRC 881/2015 came to be registered pursuant to the aforesaid order. A notice was issued to the respondent No.1, who has filed detailed submissions supported with affidavit wherein a prayer has been made to drop the proceedings initiated against him pursuant to the aforesaid order. 4. MCC No. 287/10 was registered on an application submitted by respondent M/s Gulab Chand and Company through its proprietor Shri Goutam Chand Kothari under order XLIV, Rule 1 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code, seeking leave to file first appeal as indigent person against judgment and decree dated 2-3-2010 passed by learned 8th Additional District Judge, Indore. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, a report in that matter was called from Collector Raipur regarding financial status of the respondent. Collector Raipur, vide his report dated 28-3-2014, reported that the respondent is having a bank balance of Rs. 1,22,408/- and he is not an indigent person. 5. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, a report in that matter was called from Collector Raipur regarding financial status of the respondent. Collector Raipur, vide his report dated 28-3-2014, reported that the respondent is having a bank balance of Rs. 1,22,408/- and he is not an indigent person. 5. In view of the Collector’s report, this Court permitted the respondent to withdraw his application filed under order XLIV, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. Accordingly, the same was dismissed vide order dated 2-5-2014 with a direction extracted herein before. 6. The respondent in his reply has submitted that in MCC No. 287/10, he clearly stated his occupation as business. As regards bank balance in Saving Account No. 10950663803 maintained with State Bank of India, Branch Mungeli, the information furnished by the Collector in this behalf was incorrect, inasmuch as the said account really was in the name of one Deepak Chand Kothari and not the respondent. Apart this, it is also submitted that the MCC was withdrawn primarily for the reason that the ex-parte judgment, against which respondent was contemplating to prefer First Appeal, was later on set aside by the trial Court itself in proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. 7. Shri Yashpal Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant has strongly opposed the prayer and has submitted that the respondent filed false details before the Court regarding the income and assets and thus, tried to pollute the stream of justice, therefore, he deserves to be proceeded under section 340, Criminal Procedure Code. Reliance in this connection has been placed on a decision rendered by Apex Court in Dhananjay Sharma vs. State of Haryana and ors., JT 1995(4) SC 483. 8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondent has pressed into service the decision of the Apex Court in Chandrapal Singh vs. Maharaj Singh, AIR 1982 SC 1238 and B. K. Gupta vs. Damodar H. Bajaj and ors. (2001) 9 SCC 742 . 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. As pointed out by the Apex Court in Chandrapal’s case (supra) - day in and day out in Courts averments made by one set of witnesses are accepted and the counter averments are rejected. (2001) 9 SCC 742 . 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. As pointed out by the Apex Court in Chandrapal’s case (supra) - day in and day out in Courts averments made by one set of witnesses are accepted and the counter averments are rejected. If in all such cases complaints under section 199 of IPC are to be filed not only they will open up floodgates of litigation but it would unquestionably be an abuse of the process of the Court. 11. The respondent in MCC preferred by him had sought the leave of the Court to file appeal as an indigent. This Court after going through the report of the Collector permitted withdrawal of the petition. Of course, a direction was made to conduct inquiry into the matter for initiating proceeding under section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, however, after considering the detailed reply submitted by the respondent supported with affidavit and various documents, we are of the considered opinion that it is not expedient in the interest of justice to further proceed with the matter because even the ex-parte decree, which was sought to be challenged by the respondent in the First Appeal, has later on been set aside by the trial Court. 12. The proceedings under section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, should be resorted to by the Court only when after due consideration, the Court reaches to the conclusion that it is expedient in the interest of justice to proceed in the matter. It cannot be denied that the stream of justice should not be allowed to be polluted, but at the same time it is also to be ensured that valuable time of the Court is not allowed to be wasted in unmeritorious litigation. 13. In view of the aforesaid, the proceedings initiated against the respondent, are hereby dropped. 14. This petition is disposed off, accordingly. CC as per rules.