1. Tampering with court records and fabrication of a decree after unconditional withdrawal of a civil suit — FIR for forgery and conspiracy — Challenge to cognizance under Section 195, CrPC. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 806
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Bela M. Trivedi, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
Parshottam Shantilal Chaddarwalaa – Appellant
Versus
The State of Gujarat & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 838 of 2011
Decided On : 13-05-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Huzefa A. Ahmadi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ejaz Maqbool, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Adv. Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Section 195 of the CrPC does not bar cognizance of offences involving the tampering or fabrication of court records after proceedings have concluded or been withdrawn. Such acts are ordinary IPC offences and do not require a written complaint from the court to be prosecuted.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 192, 193, 196, 204, 209, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 499, 500, 120-B, 114 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 195 and 340 - Criminal appeal against dismissal of Special Criminal Application alleging forgery and conspiracy in civil suit - High Court held tampering with court records after withdrawal of suit does not constitute offences under Section 195 since the suit was no longer pending - Bar of Section 195 does not apply as the records were not in custodia legis. (Paras 10-18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant allegedly tampered with court records post withdrawal of a civil suit and allowed execution of a fabricated decree. The FIR was attacked due to the lack of complaint from the Presiding Officer as per Section 195 of CrPC.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that no proceeding existed post withdrawal of the civil suit, thereby allowing for cognizance of the alleged offences.
Issues: The main issue addressed was whether the FIR and subsequent cognizance were valid given the withdrawal of the civil suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the offence of tampering did not affect the administration of justice since the civil suit had been withdrawn, thus Section 195 was inapplicable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Whether cognizance of offences relating to court records requires a written complaint by the presiding officer under Section 195, CrPC, or if an FIR is maintainable. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Tampering with records after unconditional withdrawal and transfer to the record room does not constitute an offence in relation to a proceeding affecting the administration of justice. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
4. The bar under Section 195, CrPC does not apply to offences committed after a proceeding is concluded and records are no longer in custodia legis. (Para 17 )
5. Appeal dismissed; judgment of the High Court upholding the cognizance of the offence is affirmed. (Para 18 )
6. Does Section 195 CrPC apply to records of a withdrawn suit?
No. Once a proceeding is withdrawn, it ceases to exist as a proceeding. Tampering with documents in the record room after disposal does not fall under Section 195 as it is not an offence in relation to any proceeding in court. (Para 10 , 12 )
7. When does an offence regarding a document attract the bar under Section 195(1)(b)?
The offence must be of a type that directly affects the administration of justice, typically committed after the document is produced or given in evidence in court. Offences committed prior to production do not strictly fall under this bar. (Para 10 , 13 )
8. What is the purpose of the bar under Section 195 CrPC?
The object of the bar is to avoid frivolous litigation and prevent private individuals from making baseless complaints, not to provide shelter or a tool to offenders or mischief-makers. (Para 17 )
9. Does a High Court direction to file a complaint bypass the Section 195 bar?
Yes. Where the High Court, as a superior court, directs a complaint to be filed in respect of an offence covered under Section 195(1)(b)(i), the bar for taking cognizance will not apply. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated October 7, 2009 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad rendered in Special Criminal Application No. 1690 of 2009, whereby the High Court dismissed the Special Criminal Application filed by the Petitioner herein.
BRIEF FACTS
2. The factual matrix of the case is that the respondent no.2 herein who, at the relevant time, was the Incharge Registrar, District Court, Bharuch, lodged a First Information Report (hereinafter, ‘FIR’) before the Bharuch City 'A' Division Police Station on 28th July, 2005 against the petitioner herein as well as two other accused persons alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 192 , 193, 196, 204, 209, 406, 420, 463, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 469, 471, 473, 474, 499, 500, 120-B and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter ‘IPC’) which came to be registered vide I-C.R. No.170 of 2005. The allegation in the FIR is to the effect that on 27th March, 2003, the petitioner herein had instituted Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2003 in the capacity of power of attorney holder of the partners of a partnership firm namely, Narmada Finvest in the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bharuch for recovery of Rs.5,45,052/- against one Kamlesh Kantilal Patel. The said firm consisted of one Jagjivan Shantilal Dalal, Pashiben Parsottam Chaddarwala and Viren Parsottam Chaddarwala as its partners. An application came to be made in the said suit proceedings seeking an order of attachment before judgment on which notice came to be issued. During the proceedings of the said suit, an out of court settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and the defendant of the suit namely, Kamlesh Kantilal Patel on 28th March, 2003 according to which the brother of the defendant Laksheshbhai Patel had undertaken to pay Rs.2,25,000/- towards settlement of the dispute. The said Laksheshbhai Patel handed over 15 cheques of Rs. 15,000/- each to the petitioner which were payable on the first day of each month with effect from 01st May. 2003. In view of the settlement dated 28th March, 2003 arrived at between the parties to the suit, on 02nd April, 2003, the petitioner tendered a withdrawal pursis seeking permission to withdraw the suit unconditionally. On the basis of the said application, the Trial Court made an endorsement on the last page of the plaint, and also on the application for interim injunction to the effect that the suit is withdrawn unconditionally. However, at the time of withdrawal of the suit, the deed of settlement was not produced in writing before the Court. As the suit was sought to be withdrawn unconditionally, as per the Rules, no decree was drawn and entry to that effect was made in the Rojkam. In view of the withdrawal of the suit, as per the provisions of the Civil Courts Manual, the documents of Special Civil Suit No.79 of 2003 were divided into four files viz. A, B, C and D and thereafter, the said files were despatched vide Outward Register No.215 of 2004 to the Record Office of the District Court, Bharuch on 04th May, 2004. The record of Special Civil Suit was thereafter lying in the custody of the co-accused Deputy Registrar-cum-Record Keeper, District Court, Bharuch.
3. The cheques which were handed over by Laksheshbhai Patel to the petitioner herein were presented for realisation and some of the cheques came to be dishonoured. The petitioner, therefore, instituted several complaints against the said Laksheshbhai under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which later on came to be withdrawn by the petitioner. In the aforesaid FIR by respondent no.2 herein, it is alleged that the petitioner herein had hatched a conspiracy with the co- accused- court employees to extract money from the defendant of the suit. The co-accused had threatened the aforesaid Laksheshbhai Patel of dire consequences if he did not pay the money to the petitioner herein. On account o
