The court clarified that allegations of forgery can be pursued criminally even if related civil litigation is ongoing, as per Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC.

ORDER :

Mr. Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Leave granted.

2. Heard Dr. P. V. Saravanaraja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant(s). Also heard Mr. M.P. Parthiban and Mr. Puneet Singh Bindra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-accused. The state is represented by Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, learned Additional Advocate General.

3. The counsel for the appellant(s) submits that the High Court incorrectly noted that the civil litigation between the appellant(s) and the respondents had not attained finality. In order to show the error in the High Court’s finding, the counsel refers to the judgment dated 09.04.2021 in the additional documents, under which, the learned Subordinate Judge, Satyamangalam had dismissed the OS No.21 of 2012 filed by M.M. Rangasamy. On the same date i.e., 09.04.2021, the same Court had allowed the O.S. No.154 of 2017 filed by A. Arokiasamy and Baby Arokiasamy.

4. With the above, the counsel for the appellant(s) argues that the High Court should not have allowed the petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC, to quash the criminal proceedings against respondents for inter alia filing forged documents in Court.

5. On the above, learned counsel for the State would support the SLP filed by the appellant(s) and submit that since forgery was alleged, the High Court should not have quashed the criminal proceeding.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand would submit that no doubt the concerned civil suits were disposed of on 09.04.2021 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Satyamangalam but the aggrieved party then preferred appeal and those are pending.

7. The above would indicate that the High Court proceeded on the wrong assumption that the civil litigation between the parties had not attained finality. That apart, in our considered opinion, the High Court has erred in quashing the proceedings by holding that there can be no FIR/private complaint for forgery of a document filed before Civil Court until the finality of the litigation. The High Court ignored the ratio of the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah & Another v. Meenakshi Marwah & Another reported in 2005 (4) SCC 370, wherein it has been held that there is no embargo under Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the CrPC to examine the criminal allegation of forgery of documents filed in Court, when such forgery is committed before its production in Court. The relevant extracts are reproduced herein:

“25. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195(1)(b)(ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate whereafter commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh [Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would be highly detrimental to the interest of the society at large.

…

“33. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh [Sachida Nand Singh v. State of Bihar, (1998) 2 SCC 493 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 660] has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195(1)(b)(ii) CrPC would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis.” (Emphasis supplied)

8. In the prese