SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 220

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, Ashok Bhushan, JJ.
Vishnu Chandru Gaonkar - Appellant
Versus
N.M. Dessai - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2018 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1395 of 2010)
Decided On : 06-03-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Offence of fraud committed earlier than producing/filing the document in a court is neither covered under Clauses (a), (b)(i) or (b) (ii) of section 195.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 195(1) – Fraud in document – Application for withdrawal of civil appeal – Allegedly containing bogus thumb impression purported to be of the party already dead – Such application filed – Court directing filing of complaint u/s 195(1)(b)(ii) – Held, offence of fraud committed earlier than producing/filing the document in a court – Neither covered under Clauses (a), (b)(i) or (b) (ii) of section 195 – More so when such withdrawal not prejudicial to appellant. (Para 15, 16)

       (1998) 2 SCC 493; (2005) 4 SCC 370 – Relied upon

       (1996) 3 SCC 533 – Referred

       Facts of the case:

       A regular Civil Suit was filed by two plaintiffs namely Laximan Rama Gaonkar and Janu Narayan Gaonkar impleading two defendants namely Kusta Naga Gaonkar and Shri Suresh Kust Gaonkar. The appellant in this appeal is legal heir of original plaintiff No. 2, Janu Narayan Gaonkar. The Suit was decreed. An application for execution of decree was filed by the legal heirs of the plaintiffs on 07.12.2003. Legal heirs of the original defendants filed a Civil Appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2001. One of the appellants in Civil Appeal namely Shaba Manju Velip (one of the legal heirs of original defendants Kusta Naga Gaonkar) died on 02.03.2005. No application to bring his legal heirs on record was filed by the appellants. The application to withdraw execution case filed for execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1993 was filed by the plaintiff's advocate on 20.06.2006. The application for withdrawal of Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2004 was filed on 18.07.2006, which was allowed on 18.07.2006 itself. The Execution Case No. 01 of 2003 was also allowed to be withdrawn on 21.07.2006.

       On 29.11.2007, the appellant filed an application under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. making allegations against the respondent, who was counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2004 that he committed offence in verifying and forging thumb impression of dead appellant namely Shaba Manju Velip. The District & Sessions Judge directed for inquiry and registering a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii). Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court which has been allowed and the order of the District Judge dated 31.07.2008 as well as the complaint filed pursuant thereto has been quashed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Present is not a case where any complaint could have been proceeded with under Section 195(1)(b)(ii).

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Ashok Bhushan, J.

This appeal has been filed questioning the judgment and order dated 06.10.2009 of the High Court of Bombay at Goa in Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 2009 by which judgment, the criminal appeal filed by the respondent Shri Narayan M. Dessai has been allowed setting aside the order of District & Sessions Judge dated 31.07.2008 directing for filing a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C.

2. The facts which are necessary to be noted for deciding this appeal are:-

A regular Civil Suit No. 4 of 1993 was filed by two plaintiffs namely Laximan Rama Gaonkar and Janu Narayan Gaonkar impleading two defendants namely Kusta Naga Gaonkar and Shri Suresh Kust Gaonkar. The appellant in this appeal is legal heir of original plaintiff No. 2, Janu Narayan Gaonkar. The Suit No. 4 of 1993 was decreed by judgment and decree dated 07.12.2001. An application for execution of decree was filed by the legal heirs of the plaintiffs on 07.12.2003. Legal heirs of the original defendants filed a Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2004 questioning the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2001. One of the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2004 namely Shaba Manju Velip (one of the legal heirs of original defendants Kusta Naga Gaonkar) died on 02.03.2005. No application to bring his legal heirs on record was filed by the appellants. The application to withdraw execution case No. 1 of 2003 filed for execution of the decree in Civil Suit No. 4 of 1993 was filed by the plaintiff's advocate on 20.06.2006. The application for withdrawal of Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2004 was filed on 18.07.2006, which was allowed on 18.07.2006 itself. The Execution Case No. 01 of 2003 was also allowed to be withdrawn on 21.07.2006. On 29.11.2007, the appellant filed an application under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. making allegations against the respondent, who was counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 91 of 2004 that he committed offence in verifying and forging thumb impression of dead appellant namely Shaba Manju Velip. By order dated 31.07.2008, learned District & Sessions Judge found that it is a fit case for inquiry under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and directed for inquiry and registering a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(ii). Respondent preferred an appeal before the High Court against the order of District & Sessions Judge dated 31.07.2008. The High Court vide its impugned judgment allowed the appeal and quashed the order of the District Judge dated 31.07.2008 as well as the complaint filed pursuant thereto. Aggrieved against the judgment of the High Court, the appellant has filed this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court relying on the Three Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Sachida Nand Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar & Anr., (1998) 2 SCC 493, which has been approved by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah & Anr., (2005) 4 SCC 370, has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent whereas the above judgments of this Court, wherein reference was made to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C., which were not applicable in the facts of the present case, since allegations made in the complaint filed by the appellant were referable to Section 195(1) (b)(i). It is submitted that the District & Session Judge has rightly considered all facts and circumstances and directed for filing of complaint against the respondents under Section 195(1)(b). No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service.

4. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

5. It is useful to extract Section 195(1) of Cr.P.C., which is to the following effect:-

"195. Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.-

(1) No Court shall take cognizance-

(a) (i) of any offence punishable under sections 172 to 188 (both in-6 clusive) of the Indian Pe





























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top