Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- The short question arising in this appeal by, special leave is whether, in the absence of necessary complaint by the Civil Court where a money receipt alleged to have been forged was produced, prosecution for offences punishable under Ss. 467, and 471 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code would be maintainable. The accused arc the appellants and they challenge the dismissal of their application under S. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

2. The appellants are father and son respectively. They took a printing press from the 1st respondent in terms of an agreement, dated December 3, 1980, with a view to carrying on the printing business. The agreement stipulated that the appellants would have to deposit Rupees 20,000/- with the 1st respondent and pay Rs. 500/- p. m. as also 50% of the net profits to 1st respondent. Dispute arose between the parties over the compliance of the terms of the agreement whereupon the 1st respondent filed against the appellants O. S. No. 609/81 for mandatory injunction and O. S. No. 1140/81 for recovery of damages. Appellants filed O. S. No. 358/81 for refund of Rs. 20,000/- claimed to have been deposited with 1st respondent and for recovery of Rs. 8,638/- on the footing that the same had been paid to 1st respondent by cheques and in cash. Along with their plaint appellants produced the original contract as also the money receipt for Rs. 20,000/- in support of the claim in the suit. After production of the money receipt in Court, 1st respondent filed a complaint against the appellants alleging forgery of his signature on the money receipt and thereby commission of offences punishable under Ss. 467 and 471, I. P. C. On receiving summonses from the Court, the appellants objected to maintainability of the criminal action and later moved the High Court of Andhra Pradesh for quashing the said proceedings by contending that in the absence of complaint from the Court the prosecution was barred in view of S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) of the Code. In support of this contention reliance was placed on S. 340 of the Code. The High Court referred to the provisions of Ss. 463, 465, 467, 471 and 474 of the Penal Code and observed :

"From the above provisions, it is quite manifest that the offence which is mentioned in the complaint carries greater punishment, namely, 10 years imprisonment, whereas under S. 463, I. P. C. the punishment is infinitely lesser than the one under S. 467, namely 2 years or fine or both. That apart, in a case reported in 1979 Cri LR at 228 (229?), it has been held by the Gujarat High Court that the offences laid down under Ss. 474 and 471, I. P. C. are distinct in that case it was contended that a complaint by A to police under S. 474 that B was in possession of forged documents with intention to use them in Court proceedings and thereafter B producing documents in Court and thereby committing offence under S. 471 did not wipe out the offence under S. 474. The High Court held under these circumstances that the Magistrate can proceed with case under S. 474 against B grounding the reason that S. 195 (1) (b) (ii) is not attracted.

The penal provisions as it is fairly settled ought to be interpreted very strictly and therefore on the foregoing analysis I have no hesitation in holding that S. 463 cannot be construed to include S. 467 as well and, therefore, certainly it is competent for the Magistrate to take cognizance of and try the same as it is needless to follow the case. Hence the contention on the basis of the provisions in S. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure fails and the same is rejected."

3. There is no dispute that the alleged forged document was produced in the suit brought by the appellants. Section 340 of the Code provides :

"340. (1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made i