Back
B. N. AGARWAL, H. K. SEMA, G. P. MATHUR, P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN
Iqbal Singh Marwah – Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi Marwah – Respondent
It appears that your query is providing a template or instructions for analyzing a legal document, but the {content} placeholder within the
To proceed, please provide the specific legal document or content you'd like me to review. For example, you could resubmit with the actual text inserted, such as:
Based on the provided legal document,
Once I have that, I can generate key points with appropriate references!
Judgment
G.P. Mathur, J.—Leave granted in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 4111 of 2000.
2. In view of conflict of opinion between two decisions of this Court each rendered by a bench of three learned Judges in Surjit Singh vs. Balbir Singh 1996 (3) SCC 533 and Sachida Nand Singh vs. State of Bihar 1998 (2) SCC 493, regarding interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’), this appeal has been placed before the present Bench.
3. The facts of the case may be noticed in brief. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are real brothers of Mukhtar Singh Marwah, while respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are his widow and son respectively. Mukhtar Singh Marwah died on 3.6.1993. The appellant No.1 filed Probate Case No. 363 of 1993 in the Court of District Judge, Delhi, for being granted probate of the will allegedly executed by Mukhtar Singh Marwah on 20.1.1993. The petition was contested by the respondents on the ground that the will was forged. On their application the appellant No.1 filed the original will in the Court of District Judge on 10.2.1994. Thereafter, the respondents moved an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. requesting the Court to file a criminal
Based on the analysis of the provided case law list, here is the categorization of the judicial treatment patterns for the case *Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah* and related precedents.
No cases were identified as "bad law" (overruled, reversed, or abrogated). The case *Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah* (2005) is consistently cited as a leading Constitution Bench decision that authoritatively settled the interpretation of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and Section 340 of the Cr.P.C.
**1. Followed / Affirmed / Relied Upon / Approved**
The vast majority of the provided entries fall into this category. Courts across India routinely cite *Iqbal Singh Marwah* as binding precedent to determine that the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. applies only when a document has been produced in court or given in evidence.
* **Examples:** K. Vengadachalam VS K. C. Palanisamy - 2005 0 Supreme(SC) 1936, Greater Kailash Welfare Association VS Municipal Corporation Of Delhi - 2005 0 Supreme(Del) 939, JITENDRA CHANDRAKANT MEHTA VS SHAMROCK IMPEX PVT. LTD. - 2006 0 Supreme(Bom) 772, RELIANCE INDIA MOBILE LTD. VS HARI CHAND GUPTA - Consumer (2006), (specifically noting *Sachida Nand Singh* "has been correctly decided" by the Bench), (stating the view was "subsequently affirmed by the Larger Bench"), Makkadas Ali Mazumdar and Anr. VS Aftabuddin Barbhuiva and Anr. - 2007 0 Supreme(Gau) 712.
* **Reasoning:** These entries explicitly describe the decision as "authoritative," "settled law," "affirmed," or "relied upon" to guide lower courts in matters concerning forgery and the scope of judicial inquiry.
**2. Distinguished (Factual Differentiation)**
A small subset of cases mentions *Iqbal Singh Marwah* but notes that the facts of the current case differ, thereby requiring a different approach or clarifying that *Iqbal Singh Marwah* does not cover the specific circumstances at hand.
* **Examples:** Antony Raju VS State Of Kerala, Rep. By Public Prosecutor - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 198, ANTHONY RAJU vs STATE OF KERALA - 2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 46219.
* **Reasoning:** These cases acknowledge the precedent but explain that the "factual situation, in this case, is entirely different from that of Iqbal Marwah’s case," indicating a distinction rather than a criticism or disagreement.
**3. Clarified / Interpreted**
These entries focus on the specific legal principle established by the case (i.e., the *custodia legis* requirement).
* **Examples:** V. RAJU vs K.N. SAHADEVAN - 2010 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14226, T N MOHANAN vs MADHU SO MOHANAN - 2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 1746, State of Tamil Nadu v. Deputy Superintendent of Police Special Investigation Team CBCID Madurai District and Others - 2016 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 17.
* **Reasoning:** These entries identify the core legal proposition of the case (forgery must relate to documents presented in court) without expressing disagreement, treating it instead as an interpretative standard for legislative intent.
None. The judicial treatment of *Iqbal Singh Marwah v. Meenakshi Marwah* is exceptionally uniform across the provided list. It is treated as the definitive Constitution Bench precedent on the subject of Section 195 Cr.P.C. jurisprudence. Even where cases apply the ruling to different facts, they emphasize that the rule established by the Bench remains the governing law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
