IMPORTANT POINT
Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 482 – Order passed by Magistrate taking cognizance of offences against respondents 2, 3 and 4, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code – Petition there against for quashment of said proceedings was Allowed – Appeal – Order passed by Single Judge could not be sustained in law – Single Judge proceeded on absolutely wrong facts and incorrect principles of law had been applied-Single Judge completely lost sight of fact that offence committed by accused in collusion with Area Lekhpal was not in relation to court proceedings – It was in any case behind the back of appellant and as soon as he came to know with regard to illegal designs of the accused he lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. – The law on the point is well settled that Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court – Single Judge further committed a gross error in resorting to Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. as provisions of the said Section can be invoked only when it is established that offence of forgery had already been committed – In any case, accused had miserably failed for grant of any relief under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – Impugned order could not be sustained and held liable to be quashed – Direction given to Magistrate to proceed with the Criminal Complaint filed by appellant against the accused – respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 in accordance with law – Appeal allowed. (Paras 26 to 33)
       Facts of the Case:
        1. An Order was passed by Magistrate taking cognizance of offences against respondents 2, 3 and 4, herein in the instant case under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. Petition there against for quashment of said proceedings was Allowed.
        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order.
       Findings of the Court:
        Held Order passed by Single Judge could not be sustained in law. Single Judge proceeded on absolutely wrong facts and incorrect principles of law had been applied. Single Judge completely lost sight of fact that offence committed by accused in collusion with Area Lekhpal was not in relation to court proceedings. It was in any case behind the back of appellant and as soon as he came to know with regard to illegal designs of the accused he lodged a complaint under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The law on the point is well settled that Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court. Single Judge further committed a gross error in resorting to Section 340 of the Cr.P.C. as provisions of the said Section can be invoked only when it is established that offence of forgery had already been committed. In any case, accused had miserably failed for grant of any relief under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. The limit of exercising jurisdiction conferred on the Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C is well defined and by no stretch of imagination, it could be said that petition filed by accused under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C had fulfilled the requirement as contemplated in this Section. Impugned order could not be sustained and held liable to be quashed. Direction was given to Magistrate to proceed with the Criminal Complaint filed by appellant against the accused- respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 in accordance with law.
       Cases referred:
        1. Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493, relied. (Para 24)
        2. Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370, relied. (Para 25)

JUDGMENT

Deepak Verma, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of Judgment and order dated 9.5.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Application No.26653 of 2007 wherein and whereby a petition filed by respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, viz., Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar respectively under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been allowed and the Criminal case No.1245/IX of 2007 titled State Vs. Panna Lal and Ors. registered against them under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) on the file of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Mathura and the order dated 24.9.2007 whereby and where under the Presiding Officer of the Court took cognizance against the accused, respondent nos.2 to 4 herein, have been quashed. Appellant, feeling aggrieved by the said order of quashment is before us challenging the same on variety of grounds.

3. We have accordingly heard Mr. D.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. Dash, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1-State. Despite service of notices none appeared before us for the accused-respondent Nos.2 to 4.

4. Facts, shorn of unnecessary details, are mentioned here in below:

5. The appellant filed a complaint purportedly under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. on 13.10.2004 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura. The main allegation in the said complaint is that he had purchased land admeasuring 0.38 decimal from Mahesh Chand, S/o Shri Jagan Prasad vide registered sale deed dated 6.10.1986. Pursuant to the execution of said sale deed in favour of the appellant-Mahesh Chand Sharma, he was handed over possession of the same by the vendor and since then he continues to be in possession thereof.

6. On 23.9.1996 appellant, with an intention to protect the property, started constructing boundary wall, which was objected to by Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar, respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein. They contended that the land in question, alleged to have been purchased by the appellant is recorded in their names and they were ready to fight on this issue.

7. Thereafter, appellant Mahesh Chand Sharma and his vendor Mahesh Chand both went to Tehsildar’s Court and made inquiries about case no.293/14 A.T and came to know that the said accused in collusion with Area Lekhpal, Prahlad Singh got their names mutated on the basis of report dated 18.8.1992 said to have been prepared under Section 22 of the Land Record Manual.

8. In the said report, Area Lekhpal reported that accused Panna Lal, Ram Babu and Rajkumar, sons of Parsadi are the only heirs of Jagan Prasad and Devi Prasad both sons of Bidha Ram. It was falsely stated that Jagan Prasad had no heir, while the vendor of the appellant Mahesh Chand is the only son of Late Jagan Prasad and is still alive and he is also the legal heir of his real uncle Devi Prasad who had no issues.

9. It appears that the Area Lekhpal had given totally untrue statement and by showing an alive person Mahesh Chand S/o Jagan Prasad, appellant’s vendor as dead had got the said names of the accused mutated. According to appellant, they had there by committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC.

10. On the strength of these allegations, an order under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. was passed. The said application/complaint of the appellant was allowed and police registered the FIR and started investigation.

11. Even though learned Single Judge has given the details of the family tree of the respondents and Mahesh Chand, vendor of the appellant but to decide the said case, it is not necessary to dwell on it further. Suffice it to say that Mahesh Chand is the only surviving lineage on his side of the family. Therefore, Mahesh Chand being the only person alive, inherited the entire property of Bidha Ram. Being the lawful owner of the above mentioned property, he executed the sale deed on 6.10.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2009 Supreme(SC) 1511

2009(6) Supreme 518SUPREME COURT OF INDIAV.S. Sirpurkar and Deepak Verma, JJ.Mahesh Chand Sharma — AppellantversusState of U.P. & Ors. — RespondentsCriminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2009Arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 8077 of 2008Decided on : 28-08-2009

IMPORTANT POINT Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.

2009(6) Supreme 518
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Deepak Verma, JJ.
Mahesh Chand Sharma — Appellant
versus
State of U.P. & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1640 of 2009
Arising out of S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 8077 of 2008
Decided on : 28-08-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Section 195 (1)(b)(ii) of the Cr.P.C. contemplates a situation where offences enumerated therein are committed with respect to a document subsequent to its production or giving in evidence in a proceeding in any Court.