Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra filed a writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 18th February 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, which set aside the order of issuance of process passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli against the respondents in R.C.C. No. 318 of 2010. The background of the case is that a private complaint was filed by Shri Harish Narayan Jog before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangli, alleging that the respondents (original accused) had committed offences punishable under Sections 466, 468, 470, 471 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Chief Judicial Magistrate, by letter dated 4th April 2009, directed the Police Inspector, Sangli City Police Station, to investigate the complaint under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and file a chargesheet. Pursuant to this direction, the police investigated and filed a chargesheet, and the Magistrate issued process against the respondents on 26th August 2010. The respondents challenged the order of issuance of process before the Sessions Court, which set aside the order on the ground that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offences under Sections 466, 468, 470, 471 IPC without a complaint in writing by the court, as required under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC. The State then filed the present writ petition. The legal issues considered were whether the Magistrate could take cognizance of the offences based on a police report under Section 156(3) CrPC without a complaint from the court, and whether the bar under Section 195 CrPC applied. The arguments of the State were that the Magistrate had correctly directed investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC and that the Sessions Court erred in setting aside the process. The respondents argued that the offences alleged related to documents produced in court, and therefore, the bar under Section 195 CrPC applied. The court analyzed the provisions of Section 195 CrPC and held that for offences under Sections 466, 468, 470, 471 IPC, when committed in respect of documents produced in court, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance except upon a complaint in writing by the court. The court reasoned that the direction under Section 156(3) CrPC and the subsequent chargesheet could not circumvent this mandatory bar. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Sessions Court's order and setting aside the issuance of process.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Cognizance of Offences - Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC - Bar on Taking Cognizance - The court held that for offences under Sections 466, 468, 470, 471 IPC relating to documents produced in court, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance except upon a complaint in writing by the court. The order of issuance of process based on a police report under Section 156(3) CrPC was set aside as it violated the mandatory bar under Section 195 CrPC. (Paras 1-10) B) Criminal Procedure Code - Investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC - Limitation - Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be used to circumvent the bar under Section 195 CrPC. The Magistrate's direction to police to investigate and file chargesheet for offences under Sections 466, 468, 470, 471 IPC was without jurisdiction as the offences were alleged to have been committed in respect of documents produced in court. (Paras 3-10) C) Indian Penal Code - Forgery - Sections 466, 468, 470, 471 IPC - Applicability of Section 195 CrPC - The allegations pertained to forgery of a will and other documents allegedly produced in court proceedings. The court held that since the documents were part of court records, the bar under Section 195 CrPC applied, and the Magistrate could not take cognizance without a complaint from the court. (Paras 3-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Chief Judicial Magistrate could take cognizance of offences under Sections 466, 468, 470, 471 IPC based on a police report under Section 156(3) CrPC without a complaint in writing from the court as required under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The judgment and order dated 18th February 2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli is upheld. The issuance of process against the respondents is set aside.
Law Points
- Section 195 CrPC bars cognizance of offences relating to forgery of documents produced in court without complaint by the court
- Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be used to bypass Section 195 CrPC
- private complaint for forgery of court documents requires sanction under Section 195 CrPC
