Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Bhausaheb Shivaramji @ Francis Ignati Bodhak, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon dated 21/03/2011. The Sessions Judge had allowed Criminal Revision Application No.54/2010 filed by respondent no.2, Lawrence Joseph Palande, and set aside the order of issuance of process passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rahata on 03/08/2010 in STC No.460/2010. The petitioner had lodged a complaint alleging that respondent no.2, his nephew, had published an advertisement in the newspaper 'Daily Sarvamat' on 30/07/2010 and moved an application before the Village Kamgar Talathi on 29/07/2010, claiming rights over agricultural property that the petitioner had purchased from Monikabai Shivraj. The petitioner alleged that these acts caused him financial loss and constituted offences under Sections 463 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate, after recording verification, issued process for the offence under Section 465 IPC. Respondent no.2 challenged this order in revision, contending that the complaint was barred under Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as the alleged forgery pertained to documents used or to be used in court proceedings. The revisional court accepted this contention and set aside the process. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the revisional court was correct in its view. The court observed that the allegations in the complaint clearly indicated that respondent no.2 had made false claims before revenue authorities, which are 'courts' within the meaning of Section 195 CrPC. Therefore, the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offence without a complaint in writing from the concerned court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the revisional order and setting aside the process. The court also noted that the revision was maintainable as the order issuing process was patently illegal for want of sanction.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Sanction for Prosecution - Section 195 CrPC - Offences under Sections 463, 465 IPC - Where the alleged forgery pertains to documents used or to be used in court proceedings, sanction under Section 195 CrPC is a prerequisite for taking cognizance - The complainant alleged that respondent no.2 made false claims before revenue authorities regarding the property, which amounts to an offence committed in relation to a court proceeding - Held that the Magistrate could not take cognizance without sanction, and the revisional court rightly set aside the process (Paras 6-8). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision - Maintainability - Section 397 CrPC - An order issuing process is interlocutory but can be challenged in revision if it is patently illegal or without jurisdiction - The revisional court found that the process was issued without sanction under Section 195 CrPC, which goes to the root of the matter - Held that revision was maintainable and the order setting aside process was proper (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the issuance of process for offence under Section 465 IPC without sanction under Section 195 CrPC is sustainable, and whether the revisional court was justified in setting aside the process.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon dated 21/03/2011, thereby setting aside the issuance of process in STC No.460/2010.
Law Points
- Sanction under Section 195 CrPC is mandatory for prosecution of offences under Sections 463
- 465 IPC when committed in relation to court proceedings
- Private complaint without sanction is not maintainable
- Revision against issuance of process is maintainable
