Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Parshottam Shantilal Chaddarwala, filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court dismissing his Special Criminal Application. The case originated from an FIR lodged by the Incharge Registrar of the District Court, Bharuch, on 28th July 2005, alleging offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, including Sections 192, 193, 196, 204, 209, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 499, 500, 120-B and 114. The FIR alleged that the appellant, along with court employees, tampered with the record of Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2003, which had been withdrawn unconditionally. The tampering included replacing the withdrawal pursis, removing the last page of the plaint, preparing a bogus decree, and fabricating documents. The appellant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bharuch, contending that under Sections 195 and 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Magistrate had no power to take cognizance without a complaint in writing by the court. The Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the application on 25th May 2007. The appellant's Criminal Revision Application No.112 of 2007 was also dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bharuch, on 24th July 2009. The appellant then filed Special Criminal Application No.1690 of 2009 before the Gujarat High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, which was dismissed on 7th October 2009. The appellant argued that the alleged offences were committed in relation to court proceedings and thus fell within the ambit of Section 195 CrPC, requiring a complaint in writing by the Presiding Officer. He also contended that no preliminary inquiry was held by the court as required under Section 340 CrPC. The respondent argued that the FIR was initiated by an authorized official on the direction of the High Court and was maintainable. The Supreme Court, after hearing the contentions, dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's order was correct and that the bar under Section 195 CrPC did not apply in the facts of the case.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 195 CrPC - Bar on Taking Cognizance - Requirement of Complaint by Court - The appellant contended that the alleged offences were committed in relation to court proceedings and thus cognizance could only be taken on a complaint in writing by the Presiding Officer under Section 195 CrPC. The court examined whether the bar under Section 195 CrPC applied to the facts of the case. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 340 CrPC - Procedure for Complaint by Court - The court considered the argument that no preliminary inquiry was held by the court as required under Section 340 CrPC before taking cognizance. The court noted that the FIR was lodged by the Registrar on the direction of the Principal District Judge. (Paras 7-8) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 192, 193, 196, 204, 209, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 499, 500, 120-B, 114 - Offences Relating to Court Records - The FIR alleged that the appellant tampered with the record of Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2003, including replacing pages and fabricating a decree. The court considered whether these offences fell within the ambit of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. (Paras 2-4) D) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC - Offences Against Public Justice - The appellant argued that the offences under Sections 193, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 228, 463, 471, 475, 476 IPC are covered under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC. The court examined the applicability of this provision to the facts. (Paras 7.1-7.9) E) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC - Offences in Respect of Documents Produced in Evidence - The appellant contended that the alleged tampering of documents produced in court proceedings attracted Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC. The court considered whether the documents were 'produced or given in evidence' in a proceeding. (Paras 7.8, 8.3) F) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 195(1)(b)(iii) CrPC - Criminal Conspiracy - The appellant argued that the offence under Section 120B IPC to commit offences specified in sub-clauses (i) and (ii) also attracted the bar under Section 195 CrPC. (Para 7.9) G) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 2(d) CrPC - Definition of Complaint - The appellant submitted that the expression 'complaint' in Section 195(1) must be a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC and cannot be invoked by an FIR under Section 154 CrPC. (Para 7.10) H) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 340(3) CrPC - Complaint by Public Servant - The respondent argued that the FIR was initiated by an authorized official on the direction of the High Court and was in compliance with Section 340(3) CrPC. (Para 8.1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the Special Criminal Application challenging the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the appellant's application that cognizance of offences under Sections 192, 193, 196, 204, 209, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 499, 500, 120-B and 114 IPC could not be taken without a complaint in writing by the court under Section 195 CrPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court's order was correct and that the bar under Section 195 CrPC did not apply in the facts of the case. The court did not provide detailed reasoning in the extracted text, but the appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Section 195 CrPC
- Section 340 CrPC
- Cognizance of Offences
- Bar on Taking Cognizance
- Complaint by Court
- Tampering of Court Records
- Withdrawn Suit
- Concluded Proceedings
- Preliminary Inquiry by Court
- FIR by Public Servant
