Tuesday, 11 September 2018
2005 M L D 834
Constitutional petition --- Registration of criminal case --- Respondent filed suit for partition against petitioner --- petitioner in her written statement controverted allegations levelled by respondent in the plaint contending that respondent/ plaintiff had been divorced by her husband before his death with mutual consent of parties – Respondent in view of contents of written statement, withdrew her claim ---- Petitioner filed an application before Trial Court under S. 476, Cr. P. C. to initiate proceedings against respondent as she had made a false statement and false claim before the Court in contents of plaint --- Said application of petitioner having been dismissed by Trial Court as well as Appellate Court petitioner had filed Constitutional petition alleging that both courts below had erred in law to dismiss her application and said dismissal order was not in consonance with law laid down by Superior Courts --- Word “may” occurring in S. 476, Cr. P. C. had been used for taking cognizance of offence and trying same by the Court which had indicated that it was the discretion of the Court to proceed against a person who had made wrong claim before the Court in the contents of the plaint --- Both Courts below had refused to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner keeping in view the circumstances of case --- Constitutional petition was not maintainable --- High Court had no jurisdiction to substitute its own finding in place of finding of Tribunal below while exercising power under Art. 199 of the Constitution.
For more, you can consult email@example.com or call +923123450006