Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anil Anant Karkhanis, was the original complainant in Regular Criminal Case No.155 of 2003 filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigad at Alibag. The complaint alleged that the first accused, who is the real brother of the complainant, along with two other accused, forged the complainant's signature on a document and produced that forged document in Special Civil Suit No.12 of 2002 pending before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Raigad-Alibag. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 01/12/2003, issued process against the accused under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470, 471 read with 120B of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by this order, the accused (respondent nos.1 to 3) filed Criminal Revision Application No.198 of 2003 before the IVth Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Raigad at Alibag. The Sessions Judge allowed the revision and quashed the order issuing process, holding that the Magistrate could not take cognizance without a complaint from the civil court as required under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complainant then filed the present criminal writ petition challenging the Sessions Judge's order. The legal issue was whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of offences under Sections 463-471 IPC when the alleged forged document was produced in a civil suit, without a complaint in writing from that civil court. The petitioner argued that the Sessions Judge erred in quashing the process. The respondents contended that the bar under Section 195 CrPC was attracted. The court analyzed Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC, which bars a court from taking cognizance of offences under Sections 463-471 IPC when the document is produced in a court proceeding, except on a complaint in writing by that court. The court noted that the civil court had not made any complaint under Section 340 CrPC. The court held that the Magistrate's order issuing process was without jurisdiction and the Sessions Judge correctly quashed it. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Sessions Judge's order.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Bar on Taking Cognizance - Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC - Offences under Sections 463-471 IPC - Where a document alleged to be forged is produced in a civil court, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of the offence except on a complaint in writing by that court. The court held that the bar under Section 195 CrPC is attracted and the proceedings are liable to be quashed. (Paras 5-8) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Procedure for Complaint by Court - Section 340 CrPC - When an offence under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC is committed in relation to a proceeding in a court, the court should follow the procedure under Section 340 CrPC before making a complaint. The court noted that the civil court had not made any complaint. (Para 7) C) Indian Penal Code - Forgery - Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470, 471 r/w 120B IPC - Allegation of forging signature on a document and producing it in a civil suit. The court held that the Magistrate's order issuing process was without jurisdiction in the absence of a complaint from the civil court. (Paras 2-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 468, 469, 470, 471 read with 120B IPC without a complaint in writing from the civil court where the alleged forged document was produced, as required under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the criminal writ petition, upholding the Sessions Judge's order quashing the process issued by the Magistrate. The court held that the Magistrate's order was without jurisdiction in the absence of a complaint from the civil court under Section 340 CrPC.
Law Points
- Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance of offences under Sections 463-471 IPC when document is produced in court proceedings without complaint by that court
- Section 340 CrPC procedure for making complaint by court
- distinction between forgery of document and its production in court
