1. Private complaint filed for forgery and cheating — Appellants challenged maintainability citing Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, as the alleged forged document was produced in civil proceedings. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 506
1996(3) Supreme 250
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad & G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Surjit Singh & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Balbir Singh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 180 of 1988
Decided on 29-2-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
When a copy of original document is produced & a private complaint is laid on basis of copy of forged agreement then bar under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. is not attracted.
Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Section 195-Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 r/w 120B-Appellants summoned in private complaint for offences-They had filed Civil Suit for injunction and filed an agreement which was alleged to be forged-Cognisance was taken by Criminal Court on 27th September 1983 and original agreement was filed in Civil Court on February 9, 1984-Since original agreement had not been filed before cognisance was taken, High Court was right in directing that Magistrate was at liberty to proceed with trial. (Paras 8 & 9)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a private complaint is barred under Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, when the document in question has been produced before a civil court. (Para 2 )
3. Section 195 prevents frivolous prosecutions and protects judicial purity; the bar applies only when the original forged document is produced in court, not a copy. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
4. Cognizance of forgery offences is barred under Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure, if the original document is produced in court prior to taking cognizance. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Criminal court permitted to proceed with trial as cognizance was taken before the document was produced in civil court. (Para 9 )
6. When does Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bar a private complaint regarding forged documents?
The bar is attracted when the offence is committed in respect of a document that is produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court. In such cases, cognizance can only be taken upon a written complaint filed by or on behalf of the court under Section 340. (Para 3 , 8 )
7. Does the production of a copy of a forged document in court attract the bar under Section 195?
No. The bar under Section 195 applies only when the original forged document itself is produced or given in evidence. The production of a copy of the document does not operate as a bar to a private complaint. (Para 4 , 7 )
8. What is the effect of taking cognizance of an offence before the forged document is produced in a civil court?
If cognizance is taken by the criminal court before the original document is filed in a civil court, the subsequent production of the document does not invalidate the cognizance already taken. The court may then proceed to trial, discharge, or acquittal. (Para 9 )
9. What is the underlying purpose of the embargo created by Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
The purpose is to protect individuals from vexatious prosecutions driven by private vendetta, preserve the purity of the judicial process, and prevent parties from using criminal proceedings to pressure opponents in pending civil litigation. (Para 5 , 6 )
ORDER
Question of law referred to this Bench is : whether the criminal Court is debarred from proceeding with the private complaint laid against the appellants on June 13, 1983 for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC )? The respondent had laid the complaint for offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 read with Section 120-B, IPC with the allegations that the appellants had conspired and fabricated an agreement dated July 26, 1978 and forged the signature of Smt. Dalip Kaur and on the basis thereof they attempted to claim retention of the possession of the remaining part of the house. The Magistrate, Amritsar had examined witnesses under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code ) and ordered issue of process summoning the appellants to appear on September 27, 1983. It would appear that the appellants filed civil suit for an injunction to restrain Dalip Kaur from interfering with the possession of appellants 1 to 3 and he produced the agreement dated 21-2-1984 which was said to have been executed and signed by Dalip Kaur. Thereafter, the appellants filed an application to quash the complaint on the ground of bar under Section 195 of the Code. The Magistrate and on revision the Sessions Judge dismissed the same. When the revision was filed in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, on a question of law ultimately the matter was referred to Full Bench which had answered the question against the appellants and remitted the matter to the referring Judge. The learned single Judge in the impugned order dated August 4, 1986 has dismissed the revision. Thus this appeal by special leave.
2. The only question is : whether the Magistrate, 1st class at Amritsar is devoid of jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Shri Markandaya, learned counsel for the appellants placing strong reliance on the judgments of this Court in Gopal Krishna Menon & Anr. v. D. Raja Reddy & Anr.1 and Patel Laljibhai and Somabhai v. State of Gujarat2 contended that once the document has been produced before the Court, it is the civil Court that has seisin of the matter. It alone or an officer on its behalf has to lay the complaint in writing. The private complaint laid by the respondent is not maintainable. The criminal Court, therefore, cannot proceed with the trial. With a view to appreciate the contention it is necessary to reiterate the scope of Section 195 of the Code which creates an embargo on the power of the Court to take cognizance of the offence.
3. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) reads that no court shall take cognizance "of any offence described in Section 463, or punishable under Sections 471, 475 or 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court".
4. This Court in Budhu Ram v. State of Rajasthan3 considered the scope of Section 195 and held thus :
"It will be seen on a plain grammatical construction of this provision that a complaint by the court is required where the offence is of forging or of using as genuine any document which is known or believed to be a forged document when such document is produced or given in evidence in court. It is clear therefore that it is only when the forged document is produced in Court that a complaint by the Court is required. Where, however, what is produced before the court is not the forged document itself, Section 195(1)(c) will not apply on its terms. The reason for this, as stated by the Judicial Committee, is the practical common sense of the matter, for the court before which a copy of a document is produced is not really in a position to express any opinion on the genuineness of the original . Therefore, even if the Assistant Settlement Officer is assumed to be a Court within the meaning of Section 195(1)(c) no complaint was necessary because the forged document itself was not produced before the Assistant Settlem
