HARMANDAR SINGH Vs. MOHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition purports to have been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Code) with the allegations which are these : Harmandar Singh petitioner instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1097/ - from the respondent. The claim of the petitioner was based on a pronote and a receipt dated 15 -9 -1978. It is alleged that the respondent in the written statement filed in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nakodar, denied having taken any loan amount from the petitioner and pleaded that the said promote was procured as a result of fraud and misrepresentation. The petitioner then moved an application under Section 349 of the Code before the same Court to prosecute the respondent for the offence under Section 193, Indian Penal Code, for filing a false written statement. The application was dismissed by the said Court on 25 -9 -1981. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jullundur, on 31 -8 -1982. By means of the present petition, the orders of the two Courts below are sought to be quashed by invoking the provisions of Section 482 of the Code.

(2.) THE main contention of the petitioner is that filing of the written statement containing false averments amounts to giving false evidence and as such the respondent is liable to be prosecuted under Section 193, Indian Penal Code. To butter this contention he has cited a decision in case Emperor v. Padam Singh, AIR 1930 Allahabad 490. It is needless to refer to the decision in the said case because the ratio thereof is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In the written statement filed by the respondent, execution of the promote and the receipt were denied. The written statement filed in a civil suit is pleading and no evidence of the facts pleaded therein. It is not disputed that after filing the written statement, the respondent did not appear in the Court and he was proceeded against ex -parte. There is thus no question of his making any statement before the Court. In this view of the matter, the learned Additional Sessions Judge is justified in holding that there was no illegality or any sort of infirmity in the order passed by the Subordinate Judge dismissing the application of the petitioner under Section 340 of the Code. In any case, before invoking the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, the petitioner is called upon to show some abuse of the process of Court or a case of gross injustice which is apparent on the record. No such asking is indicated in the present case. In the circumstances, the present petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed.