SANGEETA DUBEY ARCHANA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR OJHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the parties.

(2.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.6.2007 passed in Cri. Misc. Nc 2 of 2005 by the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna rejecting application of the appellant to make a complaint against respondent Manoj Kumar Ojha for the offence under Section 193 of the I.P.C committed by him by giving false evidence and fabricating false evidences under Sections 191 & 192 of the I.P.C. in relation to a judicial proceeding in Matrimonial Case No. 344/2002.

(3.) It appears that an application under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. was filed before Family Court, Patna in the light of the judgment of this Court reported in 1954 AIR(Patna) page-77 as stated in the application. It has been submitted that in para-17of the judgment and order dated 7.5.2005 in the above said Matrimonial Case No. 344/2002, the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Patna found that Opposite party No.1 Manoj Kumar Ojha had stated lies and the evidence of the respondent was falsified by his own letter and document produced by him. The respondent had filed appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.5.2005 passed in Matrimonial Case No. 344/2002 by the learned Family Court, Patna in this High Court which has been registered as F.A.No. 20/2006 for setting aside the findings of the learned Fam-ily Court, but the same was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court, and hence the same shall be used against the appellant Manoj Kumar Ojha in the context of the said matrimonial case or any appeal or any proceeding arising from the said matrimonial case (Annexure-4). As regards the case from which. the present appeal.has arisen, it is stated that a notice in Cri. Misc. No. 2/2005 had been sent to the respondent, but no reply was given by the respondent denying or challenging the finding of false evidence. However, a rejoinder was filed vide Annexure-6 on behalf of the appellant, stating therein that the order of the Hon ble High Court dated 19.1.2007 did not create any bar to the maintainability of the case. It is stated on behalf of the appellant that an. order was passed by the learned Family Court in the case on 8.6.2007 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner to make a complaint for the offence under Section 193 of the I.P.C. against the respondent on the ground that the decree of divorce has been passed against the respondent and therefore it is not desirable to knock on the same cause of action again, and the appellant has a liberty herself to take another iegai course of action through filing of criminal case for giving false version in the case.