RAMKRISHAN, S/O LATE SH. CHET RAM, R/O VILLAGE BAURA, P.O. JUNGA, SUB TEHSIL JUNGA, TEHSIL Vs. BHUPESHWARI DEVI, D/O LATE SH. MAST RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging order dated 30.03.2002 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, in Criminal Case No. 15/4 of 1999, affirmed on 10.12.2003 by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, in Criminal Revision No. 11 - S/10 of 2002. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. which was contested by the petitioner. In that petition, respondent No. 1 falsely claimed herself to be the legally wedded wife of petitioner. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition on 30.03.2002 and allowed maintenance in favour of respondent No. 1 at the rate of Rs.350/ - and at the rate of Rs.250/ - each per month in favour of respondents No. 2 and 3. The order dated 30.03.2002 was upheld by learned Sessions Judge on 10.12.2003 in Criminal Revision No. 11 -S/10 of 2002.

(2.) ASHA Devi claiming herself to be the wife of petitioner filed an application under Section 340 Cr. P.C. for initiating proceedings of perjury against respondent No. 1 in whose favour the maintenance was allowed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. This application was allowed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla, on 22.08.2008 holding that respondent No. 1 Bhupeshwari Devi in Petition No. 15/4 of 1999 has given false statement and, therefore, rendered her liable for prosecution under Section 193 Cr.P.C.

(3.) THE order dated 03.02.2011 has not been assailed in the present petition. The order dated 22.08.2008 has been passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate on the application of Asha Devi, who was not a party in the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in Criminal Case No. 15/4 of 1999 decided on 30.03.2002, she was also not a party in Criminal Revision No. 11 -S/10 of 2002 decided by learned Sessions Judge on 10.12.2003. The orders dated 30.03.2002 and 10.12.2003 have been challenged in the present petition by the petitioner even though the order on the application of Asha Devi under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was passed on 22.08.2008. The petitioner has not explained the delay in challenging the orders dated 30.03.2002 and 10.12.2003. In addition, the order dated 03.02.2011 passed in application under Section 127 Cr.P.C. by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has not been assailed in the present petition. There is no merit in the petition, hence dismissed. The Cr. M.P. Nos. 191 and 231 of 2012 also disposed of in view of disposal of the main petition.