Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.F. NARIMAN, NAVIN SINHA, JJ.
M/s Bandekar Brothers Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Prasad Vassudev Keni, Etc. Etc. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 546-550 of 2017
Decided on : 02-09-2020
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 340 read with Section 195 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 191 and 192 – Giving of false evidence in court – Difference between offences mentioned in Section 195(1)(b)(i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C. – Where facts mentioned in a complaint attracts provisions of Section 191 to 193 of IPC, Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Cr.P.C. applies – Once these sections of IPC are attracted, offence should be alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court – Offence punishable under these sections does not have to be committed only in any proceeding in any Court but can also be an offence alleged to have been committed in relation to any proceeding in any Court – If provisions of Section 195(1)(b)(ii) are attracted, then offence alleged to have been committed must be committed in respect of a document that is custodia legis, and not an offence that may have occurred prior to document being introduced in court proceedings – Victim of a forged document which is forged outside court premises and before being introduced in a Court proceeding, would render victim of such forgery remediless, in that it would otherwise be left only to court mentioned in Section 340 of Cr.P.C. who decides as to whether a complaint ought or ought not to be lodged in respect of such complaint – In cases which fall under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of Cr.P.C, document that is said to have been forged should be custodia legis after which forgery takes place. (Paras 19, 22, 26 and 29)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 340 read with Section 195 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 191, 192, 463 and 464 – Forging of debit notes – If in course of same transaction two separate offences are made out, for one of which Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is not attracted, and it is not possible to split them up, the drill of Section 195(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C must be followed – Debit notes were not false documents under Section 464 of IPC, inasmuch they had not been made with intention of causing it to be believed that they were made by or under authority of some other person – Since this basic ingredient of forgery itself is not made out, none of sections that are sought to be relied upon in Chapter XVIII of IPC can be said to be even prima facie attracted in facts of this case – Complaints read as a whole do not make out a case under Section 463 and 464 of IPC, but instead clearly attract provisions of 191 and 192 of IPC – Even though allegedly serious offences have been made out under Sections 191 and 192 of IPC, yet complaints themselves have now been quashed – Complaints reinstated in their original form so that they may be proceeded with further, following drill of Sections 195 and 340 of Cr.P.C. (Paras 44, 52, 58 and 60)
Facts of the case:
Proceedings in this case arise out of two criminal complaints dated 11.08.2009 filed by the Appellants against the Respondents herein before the Court of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in respect of offences alleged under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Findings of Court:
Baby and the bath-water have both been thrown out together. While it is correct to say that the order of conversion and issuing of process thereafter on a private complaint may not be correct, yet the two complaints as originally filed can still be pursued. Once the Magistrate’s order had been set aside, the learned Additional Sessions Judge ought to have relegated the parties to the position before the original complaints had been converted into private complaints.
Result : Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
R.F. Nariman, J.
1. The proceedings in this case arise out of two criminal complaints dated 11.08.2009 filed by the Appellants against the Respondents herein before the Court of the Sessions Judge, North Goa, under Section 340 read with Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) in respect of offences alleged under Sections 191 and 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
2. Accused No.1 in the aforesaid complaints is a proprietary concern of the late V.G. Quenim, based in Goa, which is engaged in the business of producing, processing and sale of iron ore. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are his son and wife respectively, who are the co-proprietors of M/s V.G. Quenim, the aforesaid V.G. Quenim having expired on 20.07.2007. M/s V.G. Quenim had shared a business relationship with the Appellants since the year 1990. However, disputes arose between the parties, as a result of which four suits, being Suit Nos.7, 8, 14 and 21 of 2000/A, were filed by the Appellants against M/s V.G. Quenim before the Civil Court at Bacholim. A fifth suit, being Suit No.1/2003/A, was filed by the late V.G. Quenim against the Appellants, which was withdrawn on 01.10.2007 unconditionally. The Respondents filed their Written Statements and Counter Claims in the said suits filed by the Appellants.
3. After withdrawal of the fifth suit, these criminal complaints were filed, inasmuch as the Appellants contended that in these proceedings, the Respondent/Accused had given false evidence, and had forged debit notes and made false entries in books of accounts. By two orders dated 01.10.2009, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I in North Goa at Panaji, returned the complaints, stating that these complaints could only be filed in the Court before whom such proceedings were pending in which the alleged offences were committed. The complaints were then filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Bicholim.
4. After various depositions had been made by witnesses before the said Magistrate, an application dated 09.05.2011 was filed, in which the Appellants prayed, relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr. v. Meenakshi Marwah and Anr. (2005) 4 SCC 370, that the said complaints be converted to private complaints. This was done by two orders of the Judicial Magistrate dated 13.10.2011, who after converting the said complaints into private complaints, issued process under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the IPC. It is important to note that the Appellants/complainants did not file any revision or other proceedings to challenge the issue of process under the aforesaid sections of the IPC.
5. The Respondents, however, filed revision applications against the said orders, in which it was stated that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC, and the procedure under Section 340 CrPC being mandatory, could not be circumvented, and the complaints read as a whole would clearly show that offences under Sections 191 to 193 of the IPC alone were made out, as a result of which the drill under the aforesaid sections of the CrPC would have to be observed. In a counter-affidavit dated 08.10.2012 filed to the aforesaid revision applications, the Appellants, for the first time, took the plea that offences under Sections 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471, 474, 475 and 477-A of the IPC were also made out against the Respondents, as a result of which a private complaint would be maintainable. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, by his judgment dated 05.03.2013, held that the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC was attracted, and that the provisions under Section 340 of the CrPC, which were mandatory, had to be followed. Since this was not done, the revision petitions were allowed and the complaints quashed. Iqbal Singh Marwah (supra) was distinguished, stating that it was a judgment which concerned itself with Section 195(1)(b)(ii) and not Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the CrPC, and would, therefore, have no a
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
