Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by Sushil Kumar against Smt. Shakuntala Devi, where he obtained a temporary injunction based on a copy of a partnership deed. Respondent No. 2 alleged that the partnership deed was forged, leading to criminal charges against the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 465, 468, 471, and 474. The Magistrate framed charges under some sections but refrained from framing charges under Sections 471 and 474 due to the absence of a complaint from the civil court, a decision upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge. The High Court, however, reversed this decision, stating that the document was not forged while in court custody, thus the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was not applicable. The appellants appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's direction but on different grounds. The Supreme Court noted that the original document was not filed in the civil court, and thus the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) did not apply, allowing for the framing of charges. The court referenced the Privy Council's decision in Sanmukhsingh v. The King, emphasizing that a copy of a document does not equate to the document being given in evidence. The appeal was ultimately dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Cognizance of Offences - Bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) - Applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court held that since the original document was not produced in the civil court, the provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) did not apply, allowing the framing of charges under Sections 471 and 474 IPC. The reasoning of the High Court was found incorrect, but the appeal was dismissed on different grounds. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate could frame charges under Sections 471 and 474 of the Indian Penal Code in the absence of a complaint from the Civil Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the High Court's direction to frame charges under Sections 471 and 474 IPC, stating that the original document was not produced in court, thus Section 195(1)(b)(ii) did not apply.
Law Points
- Cognizance of offences
- Forgery
- Production of documents
- Criminal Procedure Code
- 1973
- Section 195(1)(b)(ii)
- Temporary injunction
