Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which had quashed FIR No. 74 dated 13.4.2008 registered against Jasbir Singh (respondent) for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The FIR was based on allegations that the respondent had forged and fabricated documents submitted in legal proceedings before Revenue Courts. The background facts involve a dispute over agricultural land: the respondent's mother Karamjit Kaur had applied for transfer of property in her name, which was allowed by the Tehsildar (Sales) in 2002. Later, the respondent filed a suit claiming ownership and also appealed against the Tehsildar's order, alleging that the application was made jointly. In parallel mutation proceedings, the respondent got the land mutated in his favour along with his cousins, but the Sub-Divisional Magistrate declared the mutation contested and eventually sanctioned it in favour of Tarjit Kaur. The SDM-cum-Sales Commissioner set aside the Tehsildar's order and directed joint transfer, but the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Chief Sales Commissioner restored the original order, noting that the respondent had submitted forged documents. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner directed registration of an FIR, which was done. During trial, the respondent filed a petition under Section 482 CrPC to quash the proceedings, which the High Court allowed on the ground that the Deputy Commissioner had not held any inquiry or given opportunity to the respondent as required under Section 340 read with Section 195 CrPC. The Supreme Court framed the issue as whether the court should have heard the respondent before ordering prosecution under Section 195 CrPC. The Court examined Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and Section 340(1) CrPC, noting that the offences fell within the scope of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) as they pertained to documents produced in court. Relying on the three-Judge Bench decision in Pritish v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that a preliminary inquiry under Section 340 is not mandatory; the court may or may not conduct such inquiry. The purpose of a preliminary inquiry is only to decide whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence, not to determine guilt. The Court also held that the would-be accused has no right to participate in the preliminary inquiry or to be heard before the complaint is filed. Therefore, the High Court's order quashing the FIR was erroneous. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment and restored the criminal proceedings against the respondent, directing the trial court to proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Preliminary Inquiry under Section 340 CrPC - Section 340(1) CrPC - The court is empowered to hold a preliminary inquiry before making a complaint under Section 195 CrPC, but such inquiry is not mandatory; the court may form an opinion without any preliminary inquiry. The purpose of preliminary inquiry is only to decide whether it is expedient in the interest of justice to inquire into the offence, not to determine guilt. (Paras 8-11) B) Criminal Procedure - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 340 CrPC - The person against whom a complaint is to be filed under Section 195 CrPC has no right to participate in the preliminary inquiry or to be heard before the complaint is filed. The provision does not indicate any such right. (Paras 5, 11) C) Criminal Procedure - Offences Relating to Documents - Sections 195, 340 CrPC read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC - Where an offence under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced in a court proceeding, the court may, after such preliminary inquiry as it thinks necessary, make a complaint to a Magistrate. The High Court erred in quashing the FIR on the ground that no preliminary inquiry was held and no opportunity was given to the accused. (Paras 2-3, 7-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the court should have heard the respondent and given him an opportunity to have a say in the matter before ordering prosecution under Section 195 of the CrPC?
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned judgment of the High Court dated 22.01.2019 is set aside. Criminal proceedings against the respondent are restored. Trial court to proceed with trial in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Section 340 CrPC does not mandate a preliminary inquiry before filing a complaint under Section 195 CrPC
- opportunity of hearing to the accused before filing complaint is not required
- preliminary inquiry is discretionary and not mandatory
