Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a narrow canvass concerning a private complaint alleging forgery. The appellant had filed a complaint against the respondents alleging offences under Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The main allegation was that respondent No.2 had prepared false and forged documents, namely personal recognizance bond and surety bond in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003, and the rest of the respondents conspired and actively helped in forging said documents. These documents were eventually filed on record in Criminal Case No. 19 of 2003 pending against the appellant before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramtek. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class dismissed the complaint vide order dated 6th November 2004. The revision petition was filed and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide order dated 14th March 2005 held that such a complaint could not have been filed except in writing of the Court concerned or some other Court, that too a subordinate one. However, the Additional Sessions Judge found the allegations serious and directed that if any application is filed by the appellant under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the learned JMFC would make a suitable preliminary enquiry and thereafter record his finding as contemplated under Section 340 CrPC. This order was challenged before the High Court in an application under Section 482 CrPC, which was rejected, leading to the present appeal. The core legal issue was whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC applied to a private complaint alleging forgery of documents later filed in court proceedings, when the forgery was alleged to have been committed before the proceedings commenced. The appellant's counsel argued that the alleged forgery was not committed during the pendency of proceedings and thus Section 195 CrPC bar would not apply, relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwa v. Meenakshi Marwah. The respondents' counsel submitted that the appellant had already accepted the revisional court order and filed a Section 340 application before the Magistrate. The Supreme Court analyzed the issue by referring to the Constitution Bench judgment, which clarified that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC bars prosecution for offences specified therein when such offences are alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in any court. The Court held that the bar applies irrespective of whether the document was forged before or during the pendency of the proceedings, if it is produced or given in evidence in such proceeding. The Court found no infirmity in the revisional court's order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the direction for the appellant to proceed under Section 340 CrPC if desired.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Bar on Private Complaints - Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC - The appellant filed a private complaint alleging forgery of documents later filed in a criminal case - The Supreme Court held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC applies when offences under Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470, 471 IPC are alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in any court, irrespective of whether the document was forged before or during the pendency of the proceedings - The complaint could only be filed in writing by the concerned court or some other court, that too a subordinate one (Paras 1-6, 14-15). B) Criminal Procedure - Procedure for Prosecution - Section 340 CrPC - The Revisional Court found the allegations serious and directed the appellant to file an application under Section 340 CrPC before the Magistrate - The Supreme Court upheld this direction, stating that if the appellant files such an application, the Magistrate should conduct a preliminary enquiry and record findings as contemplated under Section 340 CrPC (Paras 7, 15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 applies to a private complaint alleging forgery of documents that were later filed in a court proceeding, when the forgery is alleged to have been committed before the commencement of the proceeding
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the revisional court's order. The Court held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC applies, and the appellant could proceed by filing an application under Section 340 CrPC before the Magistrate as directed by the revisional court.
Law Points
- Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973 bars a private complaint for offences under Sections 191
- 192
- 196
- 463
- 464
- 465
- 467
- 470
- 471 IPC when such offences are alleged to have been committed in relation to a proceeding in any court
- unless the complaint is in writing by that court or a superior court
- the bar applies irrespective of whether the document was forged before or during the pendency of the proceedings if it is produced or given in evidence in such proceeding
