JUDGMENT : D.P. Choudhury, J. - Challenge has been made to the inaction of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur for not proceeding against the opposite party under Section 340, Cr.P.C. in Misc. Case No.118 of 2002 arising out of T.S. No.174 of 1990. FACTS:- 2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that the plaintiff had filed Title Suit No.174 of 1990 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur with a prayer for declaration that he is the legally born son of late Abdul Aziz through his mother Khairun Nisha. The present opposite party being defendant therein filed written statement stating that there was compromise between the plaintiff and present opposite party. It is alleged, inter alia, that since late Abdul Aziz died issueless and he had no son like Abdul Halim Khan and had only widow Nisha, the question of sonship of Abdul Halim Khan does not arise. The present petitioner is the sister's son to inherit his property. It is alleged that the compromise decree was obtained by the present opposite party by suppressing the material fact and applying fraud on the Court. So, the petition under Section 151, C.P.C. was filed for inquiry. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) dismissed the petition under Section 151, C.P.C. by observing that there is no fraud. The present petitioner carried the matter in the appeal before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur vide Criminal Appeal No.5 of 2003. The said Court remanded the matter to the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur for de novo enquiry. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur during de novo enquiry, after examining the parties and witnesses held that there is no necessity of filing any complaint under Section 340, Cr.P.C. Against that order, this present petitioner again filed Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2006 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagatsinghpur where the order of the learned Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur was confirmed. The present petitioner has challenged the said order in this application. SUBMISSION:- 3. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the material fact has been suppressed by the present opposite party and obtained a compromise decree by exercising fraud, it would affect the administration of justice. The present petitioner has challenged the said order in this application. SUBMISSION:- 3. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the material fact has been suppressed by the present opposite party and obtained a compromise decree by exercising fraud, it would affect the administration of justice. Moreover, he submitted that there is no question of adoption under Mahammedan Law and under no circumstances Abdul Halim Khan can be said to be the son of Adbul Aziz. So, the learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Jagatsinghpur has committed error by not proceeding under Section 340, Cr.P.C. against the present opposite party. Also in criminal appeal, learned Appellate Court has failed to appreciate the material on record and committed the same mistake as committed by the learned trial Court. He also drew attention of the Court to the provision under Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. where the Court concerned should make complaint for proceeding against wrongdoer to punish under Section 340, Cr.P.C. 4. Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in such matters, the Court should proceed against the opposite party who has made submission falsely and misplaced the fact and thereby exercised fraud on the court to obtain a decree. So, he prays to interfere with the order and direct for filling of complaint. 5. Learned counsel for opposite party submits that no fraud has been committed but it is a civil dispute with regard to the status of Abdul Halim Khan. Learned Court below has not failed to appropriate the matter with proper perspective, rather after taking evidence of both the sides came to hold that there is no prima facie case to proceed under Section 340, Cr.P.C. He also informed that against the decision of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) on factual aspect, has been already challenged before this Court in appeal. 6. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the order passed by the learned courts below. It is categorically observed by the learned trial Court that he has examined the witnesses produced by the parties and finally found that point of adoption or the status of opposite party has already been decided in T.S. No.174 of 1990 and that suit has been decreed in terms of compromise where Abdul Aziz has been declared to be natural son of Abdul Halim Khan. That decree has not been challenged so far as observed by the learned court below but it is said by the parties that R.F.A. No.305 of 2017 has been filed against that decree. It is also observed by the learned trial court that the entire testimony of P.W.1 does not disclose any commission of offence under I.P.C. to file a complaint under Section 195(1), Cr.P.C. Not only this but also he has considered the evidence of the respondent adduced before the same Court. Finally, he concluded that there is no any offence committed to file any complaint under Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. 7. The learned Appellate Court also in its wisdom observed that he did not find any material to proceed against the opposite party under Section 340, Cr.P.C. 8. Since the civil appeal has been filed before this Court and both the courts below have not found any appropriate reason to proceed for affecting the administration of justice, the impugned order does not require interference. Apart from this, it is reported in ; Iqbal Singh Marwah and another versus- Meenakshi Marwah and another, (2005) 4 SCC 370 , where Their Lordships observed that the Court is not bound to make any complaint, only it is expedient in the interests of justice and not in every case. The question of magnitude of injury suffered by the person affected by the offence has to be only given regard by keeping in view the impact of that offence upon administration of justice. 9. Apart from this, it is also reported in ; Chajoo Ram -v.- Radhey Shyam and another, (1971) AIR SC 1367, where Their Lordships observed that before sanctioning prosecution for prejury Court must be satisfied that there is prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter of substance and that there is reasonable foundation for the charge to attract Section 195(1)(b), Cr.P.C. 10. With due regard to the aforesaid decision, it appears that the Court below did not find any prima facie case to proceed under Section 340, Cr.P.C. to file complaint and this Court also do not find any merit with this petition. Hence, the CRLMC stands dismissed. The L.C.R. be returned forthwith by special messenger to the Court below forthwith. Final Result : Dismissed