CRM-M-5018-2026 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 175 CRM-M-5018-2026 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.07.2026 Yashpreet through her father SPO Parvinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus SMS Sawhney, General Secretary and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- Mr. Varlin Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the order dated 24.01.2018 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yamuna Nagar, whereby the petitioner's application filed under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was dismissed, as well as the order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, dismissing the revision petition and affirming the order of the trial Court. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had instituted a civil suit challenging the appointment of respondent No.3, Dilshad Kaur, as Assistant Professor in English in GNG College, Yamuna Nagar, and sought a declaration that the said appointment was illegal along with a mandatory injunction directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner, claiming herself to be better qualified and more meritorious. During the pendency of MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5018-2026 (O&M) -2- the civil suit, the respondents examined one Tirlok Singh as a witness, who tendered certain documents, including Exhibits R-11, R-12 and R-13, in support of the appointment of respondent No.3. According to the petitioner, these documents falsely described respondent No.3 as "Dr. Dilshad Kaur" despite her not possessing a Ph.D. at the relevant time, and were produced to mislead the Civil Court. On the allegation that false and fabricated documents had been produced in judicial proceedings, the petitioner moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the Civil Court seeking initiation of appropriate proceedings. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yamuna Nagar dismissed the said application on 24.01.2018. The revision petition preferred thereagainst was also dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar on 16.09.2025. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 BNSS. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that both the Courts concerned have failed to appreciate the material available on record while dismissing the application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It is argued that documents produced by the respondents before the Civil Court falsely projected respondent No.3 as "Dr. Dilshad Kaur", although she had admittedly not acquired a Ph.D. on the date of her appointment. It is submitted that the testimony of the respondents' own witness, Tirlok Singh, during cross-examination clearly establishes this fact and, therefore, the production of such documents amounted to giving false evidence before the Court. Counsel further submits that the trial Court ignored these material MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5018-2026 (O&M) -3- admissions and erroneously concluded that no case under Section 340 Cr.P.C. was made out, and the revisional Court mechanically affirmed the said findings without properly examining the record. It is, thus, prayed that both the impugned orders be set aside and appropriate proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. be directed in accordance with law. 4. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Yamuna Nagar seeking initiation of proceedings against the respondents for allegedly producing false evidence during the pendency of the civil suit. The said application came to be dismissed vide order dated 24.01.2018. Aggrieved therefrom, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 341 Cr.P.C. before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar, which too was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 16.09.2025. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed under Section 528 of the BNSS assailing both the aforesaid orders. A plain reading of Section 341(2) Cr.P.C. leaves no manner of doubt that an order passed by the appellate Court under Section 341 shall be final and shall not be subject to revision. The legislative intent is, thus, to accord finality to the appellate order passed in proceedings arising out of Section 340 Cr.P.C. The inherent jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked to circumvent the statutory bar or to indirectly challenge an order which has been declared final by the statute. 6. In the present case, the petitioner has, in substance, sought to MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-5018-2026 (O&M) -4- reopen the appellate order passed under Section 341 Cr.P.C., which is impermissible in law. Even otherwise, before directing prosecution under Section 340 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to form an opinion that it is expedient in the interests of justice that an inquiry should be made into the alleged offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Merely because a party alleges that a false statement has been made or an incorrect document has been produced during judicial proceedings does not ipso facto warrant initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised sparingly, only where the administration of justice is likely to be affected and where the Court is satisfied that a prima facie case exists requiring prosecution. However, a perusal of the orders passed by the Courts concerned reveals that both the Courts have duly considered the allegations levelled by the petitioner as well as the material placed on record and have concurrently recorded a finding that no case was made out for initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. It has been observed that there was no prima facie material to conclude that the respondents had intentionally produced false evidence or fabricated documents so as to warrant prosecution. Keeping in view the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present petition is neither maintainable nor has any merit. The same is, accordingly, dismissed. 20.07.2026 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2026.07.20 10:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document