Summary
A private complaint alleged that the respondents had forged a personal recognizance bond and surety bond which were later filed in a criminal case pending against the complainant before a Magistrate. The Magistrate dismissed the complaint and the Sessions Court and High Court held that, by reason of Section 195 CrPC, only a complaint by the court concerned under Section 340 was maintainable. The Supreme Court set those orders aside, holding that under the Constitution Bench decision in Iqbal Singh Marwah the bar in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only where the offence is committed in respect of a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in court, so a private complaint lies where the forgery is alleged to have been committed before the document was filed.
Issues
- Whether the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC applies where the document said to be forged was fabricated before it was produced in court and only later filed in evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and Section 340, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The bar on cognizance except on a court's complaint is attracted only to offences committed in respect of a document while in custodia legis, that is after production or giving in evidence; it does not cover forgery committed earlier, as settled in Sachida Nand Singh and approved by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah. (¶¶ 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21)
- Sections 191, 192, 196, 463, 464, 465, 467, 470 and 471 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860Offences alleged in the private complaint concerning the forged bonds. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Held
- The Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah held that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC is attracted only when the enumerated offences are committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a court; where the document was allegedly fabricated before production, the embargo does not come into play and the court may take cognizance on a private complaint. The contrary view of the Revisional Court and High Court is unsustainable. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
Result
Appeal disposed of; orders of the Additional Sessions Judge dated 14 March 2005 and of the High Court dated 18 February 2010 quashed and set aside; complaint remitted to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ramtek to be decided on merits, as far as possible within one year; no opinion expressed on merits; pending applications disposed of.