M.M. Punchhi, J.
1.This is a war between two spouses. On their falling apart, the wife-respondent filed Civil Writ Petition No. 126 of 1983 in this Court for getting custody of her minor child. In that petition she made a vague allegation that she had come to know that her husband had committed the offence of bigamy by marrying another girl from a village near village Miani and that she had collected some evidence which she could prove in a Court of law. At the time of the disposal of that petition, this Court observed that the allegation was not only unsubstantiated but was denied by the husband-petitioner. In these circumstances, the ground, in fairness, was not pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the wife-respondent. Then again a similar writ petition No. 296 of 1983 was filed levelling the old allegation of bigamy with a little positivity that the husband had married a second time on March 20, 1983, at Jalandhar. This petition too was dismissed in view of the denial of the husband-petitioner that he had performed any marriage. It was observed by this Court that till the allegation of second marriage is substantiated or some new ground arose, the wife-respondent could not be granted any relief in view of the decision in the previous writ petition.
2. The wife-respondent then opened another front by filing a petition under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before this Court (Criminal Misc. No. 6267-M of 1983) complaining that the husband had made a false denial about the factum of the second marriage and that the matter be enquired into and on the strength thereof a complaint under Section 193, Penal Code, be instituted against him at the instance of the Court. A. S. Bains, J. on March 12, 1984, directed the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, to hold an enquiry into the matter and submit a time-bound report. Accordingly, Shri J. S. Sekhon, District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, went into the matter and submitted a detailed report on June 18, 1984, holding that it could not be said that the husband-Jaswinder Singh and his companions Sheel Kaur, Jagjit Singh and Dilbagh Singh had filed wrong affidavits. He further held that the allegation of Paramjit Kaur petitioner (respondent herein) in her affidavits regarding her husband having contracted a second marriage with Smt. Sheel Kaur were certainly not truthful. After the report was received in this Court, the matter was placed before M. R. Sharma, J. and Cri. Misc. No. 6267-M of 1983 preferred by the wife-respondent under Section 340 of the Cr. P.C. was dismissed. The Hon'ble Judge observed that this Court was extremely reluctant to exercise jurisdiction on questions of fact which are hotly contested.
3. Now is the turn of the husband-petitioner to rely on the said report of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, to contend that when the finding has been recorded that the allegations of the wife-respondent in her affidavits regarding the husband having contracted a second marriage with Smt. Sheel Kaur were certainly not truthful, it is just and proper, rather expedient in the interest of justice, that a complaint be filed by this Court against the wife and her supporters. The wife on the other hand, contends that the entire record be called for and the enquiry record be re-examined to come to the conclusion that the affidavit of the wife was right and that of the husband wrong.
4. As is plain from the aforesaid stances adopted by the parties, they are out for personal vendetta. It is a settled principle of law that courts never become tools at the hands of the parties to satisfy private vendetta or to take up cudgels on behalf of one party and punish the other. The primary object to take proceedings under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in instituting a complaint for giving false evidence, is to curb the evil of perjury and to keep the flow of proceedings in courts unsullied and pure. It is only in a rare case, when the Court comes to the conclusion that if the complaint is filed conviction is more or less a certainty, that it chooses to become a complainant. In such like contentious issues, when the wife can again indulge in proving that the husband was wrong and she was right, it is not expedient for this Court to enter into the fact and become a complainant at the behest of the husband-petitioner. Thus, I am of the considered view that it is not expedient to pursue the matter any further at the instance of the parties.
5. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.