ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 2. The writ petition has been filed for following reliefs: “That by means of this application the petitioner prays for grant of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari or an order or direction for quashing the order dated 14.05.2007 (Annexure-5) passed by the respondent no. 1 in case no. 78 whereby a recommendation for criminal investigation and suitable action against the petitioner for disciplinary/departmental action against the petitioner sought to have been made with an advice to the respondent no. 3 to move Family Court for obtaining maintenance allowance and for any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.” 3. On 24.01.2018, the matter was heard at length and following order was passed: “1. Heard in part. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioner at length. 3. It is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the State Commission for Women, Jharkhand. The said commission for Women has been constituted under National Commission for Women's Act, 1990. 4. The counsel for the petitioner has placed the impugned order at length and is aggrieved by the directions/observations issued in the impugned order as contained in page no. 34 of the writ petition wherein 3 directions/observations have been made which are as follows:- (i) “Criminal investigation against the O.P. Bidhu Bhushan Dwivedi and suitable action against him as per investigation findings. ii) It also recommends disciplinary/departmental action against the O.P. Bidhu Bhushan Dwivedi. iii) The petitioner is advised to move the Family Court for obtaining maintenance allowance from her husband.” 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the directions/observations made by the commission is wholly without jurisdiction. It is further submitted that without prejudice to the aforesaid contention, the petitioner has already been proceeded departmentally and an order of compulsory retirement has been passed which is under challenge in another writ proceeding. So far as the third directions/observations is concerned, same is merely an advice. It is further submitted that the point regarding maintenance is pending before different forums. 6. On the point of jurisdiction, the counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that she needs some time to work out the issue and has prayed for some time by way of last indulgence. 7. It is further submitted that the point regarding maintenance is pending before different forums. 6. On the point of jurisdiction, the counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that she needs some time to work out the issue and has prayed for some time by way of last indulgence. 7. Post the matter on 30.01.2018 for 'Final Disposal'.” 4. In furtherance to the submissions made on the last date, Mr. A.K. Das, counsel for the respondent no. 3, assisted by Ms. Puja Kumari, submits as under: (a) that writ petition has itself become infructuous, in as much as, the directions contained in impugned order as recorded in the order dated 24.01.2018 has already been complied. (b) so far as the direction regarding disciplinary/departmental action, passed against petitioner Bidhu Bhushan Dvivedi, is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has already been proceeded departmentally and has been awarded punishment of compulsory retirement which itself is under challenge in another case. (c) So far as direction regarding maintenance allowance is concerned, the respondent no. 3 was advised to move before the family court to obtain maintenance allowance from her husband and the matter is already sub-judice before the competent court of law. (d) So far as criminal investigation against the petitioner is concerned it is submitted that criminal case between the parties is already pending but so far criminal investigation in connection with the observation made in the impugned order is concerned no proceeding has been initiated. (e) It is also submitted that petitioner had made false statement before the women commission and had filed a false certificate before the women commission and accordingly a direction was issued for criminal investigation against the petitioner for initiating action but no proceeding has been initiated. (f) It has been submitted that under the provisions of the National Commission for Women's Act, 1990 the said authority has the power of civil court for various purposes including issuing summons and taking evidence. 5. The counsel for the petitioner in response to the said submissions made by the respondents submits that various observations made in the impugned order which unnecessarily create hurdles in the career of the petitioner. He further submits that observations/directions regarding the criminal investigation ought to not have been made by the women's commission particularly with regard to the alleged false statement given before the women commission and such observations/directions is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. He further submits that observations/directions regarding the criminal investigation ought to not have been made by the women's commission particularly with regard to the alleged false statement given before the women commission and such observations/directions is wholly without jurisdiction. 6. In view of the facts and circumstances and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the Court is of the view that so far as direction in the impugned order regarding disciplinary proceeding and maintenance against the petitioner is concerned the proceedings has already been initiated as mentioned above by the counsel for the respondent no 3 and it would be sufficient to observe that the petitioner will not be prejudiced by any observation or direction contained in the impugned order and the said proceeding will be taken care of on their own merits without being prejudiced by any observation or directions made in the impugned order. 7. However, so far as the directions/observations regarding criminal investigation against the petitioner is concerned it is in two parts, first, relating to the relationship between the petitioner and respondent no 3 relating to allegations with regards to maintenance, moral turpitude, bigamy etc. and second, in connection with alleged false statement given before Women's Commission and alleged false certificate filed before the said authority. So far as the first part is concerned it is an admitted fact that criminal case have been pending between the parties. It would be sufficient to observe that the cases pending between the parties will be decided on their own merits without being prejudiced by the observations made in the impugned order. So far as the second part is concerned it is an admitted fact that no proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of section 340 read with section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which inter-alia provides for the procedure to be followed in the matters regarding making false statement or filing of false evidence before the court. This being the factual situation the authority should not have directed any criminal investigation on such issue. This being the factual situation the authority should not have directed any criminal investigation on such issue. From the perusal of the provisions of section 195 read with section 340 of the Code of Criminal procedure, it appears that any allegation in connection with any false statement or false evidence before a Court has to be initiated in the manner prescribed u/s 340 read with section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and no court can take cognizance of such offence u/s 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure unless such complaint is made in writing to the magistrate of first class having jurisdiction. Therefore, the direction in the impugned order regarding criminal investigation against the petitioner in connection with any false statement or false evidence before a Court is meaningless and such directions cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with an observation that the petitioner will not be prejudiced by any of the three observations/directions made in the impugned order dated 14.05.2007 passed by State Commission for Women Jharkhand. 9. With aforesaid observations the writ petition stands disposed of.