1. Complaint filed for forgery of a court-submitted document under Sections 465 and 466 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1082
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N.Kirpal : D.P.Mohapatra
Tarun K.Shah: Padmanabh B.Joshi
Versus
C.R.Alimchandani: Tarun K.Shah
Case No. : 553 of 2000
Date of Decision : 7/18/00
Advocates Appeared: Chauhan Shilpa : Kaushik Lalita : Kaushik Naresh : Roy N.K.
A complaint alleging that multiple accused persons 'together forged' a document is sufficient for a Magistrate to issue summons; the High Court cannot quash such proceedings merely because the specific individual role of each accused was not detailed in the complaint.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465 and 466 read with Section 34 - Forgery of a document - Issuance of summons - Quashing of proceedings - High Court quashed proceedings against two of the three accused on the ground that the complainant failed to plead the specific role of each accused in the forgery - Where the complaint specifically alleges that the accused persons together forged the document, the High Court is not justified in quashing the order of the Magistrate issuing summons. (Paras 10, 11, 12)
Facts of the case:
A complaint was filed against the Chairman and Managing Director, the Principal Manager (Finance) and Company Secretary, and the Joint Secretary and Manager (Finance) of a company for committing offences under Sections 465 and 466 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that they had filed a forged certificate, purportedly issued by a municipal corporation, in a pending court proceeding. The Magistrate issued summons to all three accused. The High Court subsequently quashed the proceedings against the Chairman and Managing Director and the Joint Secretary, holding that the allegations were insufficient to implicate them as their specific roles in the manufacturing of the document were not pleaded.
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in quashing the proceedings. The complaint specifically alleged that the accused had together forged the subject certificate. Since the document was produced in court on behalf of the company of which the accused were high-ranking officials, the allegation of joint forgery was sufficient for the issuance of summons.
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the summons against certain accused persons on the basis that the complainant did not specify the individual role of each accused in the alleged forgery.
Ratio Decidendi: When a complaint specifically alleges that multiple accused persons together committed a forgery, it is sufficient to sustain the issuance of summons by a Magistrate, and the High Court should not quash such proceedings at the preliminary stage based on the absence of detailed individual roles.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the complaint sufficiently pleaded the individual roles of each accused in the forgery to justify the issuance of summons. (Para 7 , 10 )
3. The High Court erred by requiring specific roles of each accused when the complaint alleged they together forged the document. (Para 10 , 11 )
4. A complaint alleging that accused persons together forged a document is sufficient for a Magistrate to issue summons without pleading individual roles. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
5. High Court order quashing proceedings against certain accused set aside; trial court's order issuing summons upheld; appeal allowed. (Para 12 )
6. Does a complainant need to specify the individual role of each accused in a forgery complaint to justify issuing summons?
No. If the complaint specifically alleges that the accused persons together forged the document, it is sufficient for the Magistrate to issue summons, even if the specific role of each individual is not detailed. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 )
7. Is the High Court justified in quashing summons if the complaint alleges a joint act of forgery?
No. When a complaint alleges that accused persons together forged a document, the High Court is not justified in quashing the Magistrate's order for issuing summons based on the absence of individual roles. (Para 10 , 12 )
(1) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, we see no reason to interfere with the decision of the High Court. The special leave petition is dismissed accordingly.
(2) LEAVE granted.
(3) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(4) THE appellant herein had filed a complaint against Shri C.R. Alimchandani, Chairman and Managing Director of Stup Consultant, Shri P.B. Joshi, Principal Manager, (Finance) and Company Secretary of the said Company and Shri K. Sivaram, Joint Secretary and Manager (Finance) in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 37th Court, Esplanade, Mumbai, being case no. 2167/ Misc./90.
(5) THE complaint which was filed alleged that the said three accused had committed offence under Sections 465 and 466 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code inasmuch as they had filed a certificate in the Court in a pending proceeding between the petitioner and the Company, a document purported to have been issued by the Bombay Municipal Corporation which document was a forged one.
(6) ON the basis of the complaint which was filed, summons were issued by the Magistrate who came to the conclusion vide his order dated 12. 11. 1990 that prima facie offence was disclosed against all the thiee accused persons under Sections 465, 466 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(7) AGAINST the issuance of the summons, the accused filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 1276/91 in the Bombay High Court. By the impugned judgment dated 13.10.1998, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the allegations contained in the complaint, some portions of which were extracted in the judgment, were not sufficient to implicate accused nos. 1 and 3.
(8) ACCORDING to the learned Judge, accused no. 2 namely P.B. Joshi, stood implicated in the forgery of the said document. The learned Judge quashed the proceedings against accused nos. 1 and 3.
(9) THE special leave petition (cri.) no. 3889/99 of P.B. Joshi has been dismissed by us.
(10) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties and without going into any great detail, we find that the High Court erred in quashing the proceedings which had been initiated against respondent nos. 1 and 3. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that it was incumbent upon the part of the complainant to plead the role of each accused in the making or manufacturing of the document in question. This document had been produced in the Court on behalf of the Company of which accused no. 1 was Chairman and Managing Director and accused no. 3 was Joint Secretary and Manager (Finance). In the complaint it was specifically stated
"I submit that the accused have together forged the subject certificate (letter) of viz. inspection extract in respect of Award No. 1316 (2-2A) BBB-12........".
(11) WITHOUT expressing any opinion on the merits of the case so that no prejudice is caused to any party, we are of the opinion that the complaint which was filed specifically alleged that all the three accused had in a sense together forged the document which was presented in the Court. It is possible that this allegation may be incorrect, whole or in part. We are not considering this question at this stage.
(12) THE High Court, in our opinion, in the facts of the present case, was not justified in quashing the order of the Magistrate who had issued summons to accused nos. 1 to 3. For the aforesaid reasons, the order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court is upheld. The appeal is allowed. All the accused will be entitled to raise such pleas as are open to them in accordance with law.
