CRM-M-40643- 218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Jaswinder Kaur Surinder Kaur and Another CORAM : HON'BLE MS Present: Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. MANDEEP PANNU J. 1. The present petition prayer for quashing the order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, whereby the application moved under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for wa revisional order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the criminal revision. 2. The record reveals that an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. on oath was moved by the petitioner fixed for preliminary evidence. However, on the date fixed, neither the complainant nor her counsel appeared bef and the record was perused. In the absence of the complainant and in view of the failure to pursue the proceedings, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.07.201 -2015 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS and Another HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. -.- MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, whereby the application moved under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for wa revisional order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, dismissing the criminal revision. The record reveals that an application under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. seeking strict and immediate action for alleged false statements on oath was moved by the petitioner–complainant Jaswinder Kaur. The matter was fixed for preliminary evidence. However, on the date fixed, neither the complainant nor her counsel appeared before the Court. Repeated calls were given and the record was perused. In the absence of the complainant and in view of the failure to pursue the proceedings, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.07.201 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40643-2015 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.02.2026 ....Petitioner ....Respondents MANDEEP PANNU for the petitioner. Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, whereby the application moved under Section 340 read with Section 195 Cr.P.C. was dismissed for want of prosecution, as well as the revisional order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, The record reveals that an application under Section 340 read with seeking strict and immediate action for alleged false statements complainant Jaswinder Kaur. The matter was fixed for preliminary evidence. However, on the date fixed, neither the ore the Court. Repeated calls were given and the record was perused. In the absence of the complainant and in view of the failure to pursue the proceedings, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application for want of prosecution vide order dated 12.07.2012. has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer for quashing the order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Amritsar, whereby the application moved under Section 340 nt of prosecution, as well as the revisional order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, The record reveals that an application under Section 340 read with seeking strict and immediate action for alleged false statements complainant Jaswinder Kaur. The matter was fixed for preliminary evidence. However, on the date fixed, neither the ore the Court. Repeated calls were given and the record was perused. In the absence of the complainant and in view of the failure to pursue the proceedings, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40643- 3. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision. The learned Revisional Court, after examining the entire record, dismissed the revision vide a detailed order dated 30.07.2015, recording a categorical finding that the complainant had failed to lead any preliminary evidence despite availing several opportunities and had shown lack of interest in prosecuting the complaint. 4. In the present petition, it has been averred that the courts below erred in dismissing the application merel that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. concern administration of justice. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner could not appear due to a bona fide mistake regarding the date and that the matte 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the present petition and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders 6. This Court has 7. The application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was pending for preliminary evidence. The revisional court has recorded a clear finding that the complainant neither examined herself nor produced any witness despite multiple opportunities. The absence on the cruci of a consistent pattern of non undoubtedly relate to offences affecting administration of justice, but the jurisdiction under the said provision is discretiona with great circumspection. 8. The revisional court has already examined the entire record and found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The present petition, in substance, seeks a r -2015 (O&M) Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision. The learned Revisional Court, after examining the entire record, dismissed the revision vide a detailed order dated 30.07.2015, recording a categorical finding that the had failed to lead any preliminary evidence despite availing several opportunities and had shown lack of interest in prosecuting the complaint. In the present petition, it has been averred that the courts below erred in dismissing the application merely on account of absence and failed to appreciate that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. concern administration of justice. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner could not appear due to a bona fide mistake regarding the date and that the matter ought to have been decided on merits. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the present petition and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders This Court has carefully gone through the record. he application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was pending for preliminary evidence. The revisional court has recorded a clear finding that the complainant neither examined herself nor produced any witness despite multiple opportunities. The absence on the crucial date was not an isolated instance but part of a consistent pattern of non-prosecution. Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. undoubtedly relate to offences affecting administration of justice, but the jurisdiction under the said provision is discretiona with great circumspection. The revisional court has already examined the entire record and found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The present petition, in substance, seeks a re-appreciation of facts and a second -2- Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision. The learned Revisional Court, after examining the entire record, dismissed the revision vide a detailed order dated 30.07.2015, recording a categorical finding that the had failed to lead any preliminary evidence despite availing several opportunities and had shown lack of interest in prosecuting the complaint. In the present petition, it has been averred that the courts below erred y on account of absence and failed to appreciate that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. concern administration of justice. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner could not appear due to a bona fide mistake r ought to have been decided on merits. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the present petition and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders carefully gone through the record. he application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was pending for preliminary evidence. The revisional court has recorded a clear finding that the complainant neither examined herself nor produced any witness despite multiple al date was not an isolated instance but part prosecution. Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. undoubtedly relate to offences affecting administration of justice, but the jurisdiction under the said provision is discretionary and is required to be exercised The revisional court has already examined the entire record and found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The appreciation of facts and a second Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner preferred a criminal revision. The learned Revisional Court, after examining the entire record, dismissed the revision vide a detailed order dated 30.07.2015, recording a categorical finding that the had failed to lead any preliminary evidence despite availing several In the present petition, it has been averred that the courts below erred y on account of absence and failed to appreciate that proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. concern administration of justice. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner could not appear due to a bona fide mistake Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the present petition and submits that there is no illegality in the impugned orders. he application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was pending for preliminary evidence. The revisional court has recorded a clear finding that the complainant neither examined herself nor produced any witness despite multiple al date was not an isolated instance but part prosecution. Proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. undoubtedly relate to offences affecting administration of justice, but the ry and is required to be exercised The revisional court has already examined the entire record and found no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate. The appreciation of facts and a second TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-40643- revisional scrutiny under the guise of inherent jurisdiction, which is impermissible in law. 9. It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not to be exercised as a substitute for revision courts below have passed reasoned orders after due application of mind. No abuse of process of Court or failure of justice is made out so as to warrant interference in exercise of inherent powers. 10. In view of the abov impugned orders dated 12.07.2012 and 30.07.2015. petition is dismissed. 11. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. February 06, 202 tripti Whether speaking/non Whether reportable -2015 (O&M) revisional scrutiny under the guise of inherent jurisdiction, which is impermissible It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not to be exercised as a substitute for revision courts below have passed reasoned orders after due application of mind. No abuse of process of Court or failure of justice is made out so as to warrant interference in exercise of inherent powers. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 12.07.2012 and 30.07.2015. petition is dismissed. All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. , 2026 Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -3- revisional scrutiny under the guise of inherent jurisdiction, which is impermissible It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are not to be exercised as a substitute for revision or appeal, particularly where the courts below have passed reasoned orders after due application of mind. No abuse of process of Court or failure of justice is made out so as to warrant interference in e, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 12.07.2012 and 30.07.2015. Accordingly, the present All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE : Speaking : Yes/No revisional scrutiny under the guise of inherent jurisdiction, which is impermissible It is well settled that the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or appeal, particularly where the courts below have passed reasoned orders after due application of mind. No abuse of process of Court or failure of justice is made out so as to warrant interference in e, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the Accordingly, the present All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stands disposed of. TRIPTI SAINI 2026.02.06 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document